Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND INDUSTRY

Home Accidents

Mr. Boswell: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what his Department is doing to reduce the number of accidents in the home.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Corporate and Consumer Affairs (Mr. Francis Maude): We are doing a great deal to reduce the number and severity of home accidents. The new Consumer Protection Act 1987, and in particular the general safety requirement, greatly improves the protection provided for consumers by introducing tougher but more flexible consumer safety laws. We are now doing more than ever before to educate consumers about potential hazards. In November I announced a series of home safety awareness campaigns designed to make people more aware of the dangers in and around the home. I expect those and other initiatives to reduce home accidents.

Mr. Boswell: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply and for the action that was taken on foam-filled furniture earlier in the week. Does he agree that more than 5,000 fatalities a year in the home are still far too many? Because such fatalities occur in different places, often on private property and behind closed doors, they represent the Cinderella of the public protection industry. Will my hon. Friend re-emphasise the importance of starting safety education at school and, at adult level, reminding people of the availability of cheap, effective devices, such as stair guards and smoke detectors, which are now readily available and realistically priced?

Mr. Maude: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Of course, there is a role for regulation, as we showed earlier in the week in respect of foam-filled furniture. However, most accidents in the home occur as a result of people's behaviour rather than because of design faults in products. Most accidents in the home are as a result of falls. The home safety awareness campaign is a series that we are running for three years, and its purpose is to try to influence the way in which people behave.

Mr. Ashton: After the most humiliating climb-down of any Minister in 20 years regarding foam-filled furniture, is it not a fact that there is a major loophole in that legislation because it does not apply to beds? Is the Minister aware that in bed-and-breakfast accommodation

and many other places of overcrowding, children often have to sleep in the same room in which they live, and often next to an electric fire? People may fall asleep smoking a cigarette. Such hazards do nothing but illustrate the incompetence of the Minister and the Government.

Mr. Maude: I do not want to reduce this debate to party political wrangling, because:it would not be appropriate, but I must remind the hon. Gentleman that we are the first Government who have done anything about foam-filled furniture. That danger has been apparent for at least 15, if not 20, years, but the Labour Government that the hon. Gentleman supported in the late 1970s did absolutely nothing about it. We accept that there may be a problem with beds. However, the problem to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and which I mentioned in my first answer, relates to the way in which people behave. It is that behaviour that we need to influence. There may be a problem with beds, and I am looking urgently to see whether further steps can be taken in respect of mattresses.

Mr. Blair: Does the Minister acknowledge that, whatever the reasons for fires beginning, many of the victims are either the elderly and immobile or children who have no responsibility for starting those fires? Now that we have secured regulations covering foam-filled upholstered furniture, does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is no logical reason why we should not extend similar protection to foam-filling in bedding, cushions and other types of domestic furniture?

Mr. Maude: There are already regulations — the toughest in the world — in respect of upholstered furniture, and those will remain in force. Mattresses and other bedding components are covered by the general safety requirement that we introduced in the Consumer Protection Act. We are in the process of improving standards for items such as mattresses, which will set the benchmark for safety in that area. However, we are looking urgently to see whether we can take further steps.

Mr. Holt: Would my hon. Friend care to remind Opposition Members that, far from doing a U-turn, he has acted expeditiously, because the new trial foams have been on the market for only eight months and so far are untried and untested by consumers') My hon. Friend has acted precipitately because it is not yet known whether those foams will be commercially viable. If my hon. Friend is to be consistent, he should also consider bedding, curtains, loose covers and other flammable items.

Mr. Maude: There is a serious danger that the effect of all this regulation may be to induce in people a false sense of security, because there is n o way in which we can create complete safety in the home by regulation and legislation. I reiterate that safety in the home depends, and will continue to depend to a large extent, on the way people behave. Nothing that we do should in any way serve to relax the vigilance that people should show at home.

Mr. Beggs: I welcome the action that is proposed, even at this late stage, and share the Government's anxiety that steps should be taken to improve safety in the home with respect to foam-filled furniture. Will the Minister inform the House whether he has yet consulted the Northern Ireland Office or the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to ensure that Northern Ireland householders receive similar protection in future?

Mr. Maude: We shall certainly talk to the Northern Ireland Office about the impact of any regulations on Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman talked about action being taken at a late stage, but I must tell the House again that we already have in force the toughest regulations anywhere in the world in respect of foam-filled furniture.

COCOM

Mr. Atkinson: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met his COCOM colleagues; and what matters were discussed.

The Minister for Trade (Mr. Alan Clark): I have not met my COCOM colleagues recently, but the Department's officials participate regularly in COCOM meetings. Matters discussed recently have included the review of the control lists and efforts to improve the operation of COCOM.

Mr. Atkinson: Is my hon. Friend aware of the growing number of cases of British exporters of high technology being set up by the CIA under the guise of the COCOM rules? Is he further aware of the high volume of American technology illegally sold to the Soviet bloc, most notably through Norway? Does that not suggest that we should have an urgent fundamental review of the working and enforcement of the COCOM rules?

Mr. Clark: Yes, there is something in what my hon. Friend says. The COCOM list is composed of three categories—the munitions list, the atomic energy list, and the industrial list, which is the longest. I feel sure that the House would not wish to see anything done that would prejudice the strategic controls on the munitions and atomic energy lists, but my hon. Friend is right in saying that the industrial list could be overhauled much more often than it is. We have had a rolling review since 1984, which considers a quarter of the list every six months, but my feeling is that a great deal of material that is obsolete and does not deserve to be included remains on the list. Unfortunately, COCOM must have unanimity before an item can be removed from the list, and it entails an arduous negotiating process to achieve that.
On the question of breaches of COCOM, it is particularly regrettable that other countries, particularly Norway and Japan, have broken the COCOM agreement and sold sensitive industrial material to the Soviet Union. I do not know of any instance in which the United States has done that, but it is true that there are rumours—and I should be glad to have the facts from my hon. Friend if he can provide them — that from time to time the United States precludes competitive items from being sold and may then find other ways to fill the gap itself.

Mr. Skinner: Why does the Minister not turn round to his hon. Friend the Member for Bournemouth, East (Mr. Atkinson) and tell him that there is now a different ball game between the Prime Minister and Gorbachev? He is the bloke with whom she says she can do business. She gallivants down the streets of Moscow with him and meets him on the tarmac at Brize Norton. The world has changed in the past few months, and the Minister should tell his hon. Friend that.

Mr. Clark: I am glad to have the hon. Gentleman's support and endorsement. He will be glad to hear—the

reasons that he cited may have something to do with this —that the United Kingdom takes the lead in trying to have the COCOM list simplified and reduced in size.

Austin Rover

Mr. Andrew Hargreaves: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what information he has on forecasts for sales by Austin Rover in Japan in 1988 and as to how the figures compare with those for 1985.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Robert Atkins): Registrations by Austin Rover Japan, which also markets certain non-Austin Rover products, increased by more than 200 per cent. between 1985 and 1987. Continued improvement is expected in 1988.

Mr. Hargreaves: Does my hon. Friend agree that these figures explode the myth that British companies cannot sell in Japan, despite non-competitive taxation in Japan on motor cars? Does he further agree that they augur well for Austin Rover exports and therefore for employment in the west midlands, and ultimately for the Government's intention to return the company to the private sector?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is right. This is an excellent news story, because the figures have increased from 2,261 in 1985 to 6,445 in 1987. That is an excellent story and we should congratulate Austing Rover Japan on it.

Mr. Barry Jones: Having heard his answer, I warn the Minister against complacency. Does he know that his Department told me this week that Japanese car imports to Britain amounted to 191,000, representing £569 million? What will the Government do about that wretched balance of trade?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman should know that the proportion of imported cars in this country is dropping year by year. We must take into account the fact that people in this country wish to buy cars, and we cannot stop them doing so. He must recognise that the figures given by the hon. Gentleman represent a small proportion of a large market.

Mr. Oppenheim: Is it not true that many of the cars sold by Austin Rover in Japan are Peugeots and that many others are Rovers assembled in Japan? Is it not strange that, although we accuse Japan of protectionism, we have an 11 per cent. gentleman's agreement to prevent the Japanese exporting to Britain? France limits Japanese imports to 3,000 cars, as do Spain and Italy. Is it not the Europeans who are now the protectionists, because they have unfortunately lost the will to compete with the Japanese by making competitive goods?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend must recall the figures that I referred to a moment ago. This is a good news story.
As regards the proportions of cars that are sold in Japan by Austin Rover, 80 per cent. are Austin Rover cars, and Peugeot and Rolls-Royce make up the rest.

Mr. Heffer: As one who has always driven Austin Rover cars and found them absolutely excellent due to the great craftsmanship of the workers involved, may I ask the Government to begin to ask some of the motoring correspondents on occasion to write that these are good cars that should be sold abroad with our support?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, and I agree with him.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: I welcome any improvement for Austin— and even for Rover—but can the Minister tell us why, in his opinion, the production of cars of 2·8 litres and more, which constitute the major part of exports to Japan, is only three quarters of what it was in the early 1970s? Why are our exports of cars only half what they were in the early 1970s, and why has the import penetration of cars into our market risen from less than 40 per cent. in 1979 to more than 50 per cent. today?

Mr. Atkins: I think that the hon. Gentleman and the House are aware that in past years there were question marks over some British manufacturers and the cars that they produced. Since then things have improved beyond all peradventure, and increasing numbers of cars made in this country are being purchased. None the less, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary, who is in Japan at the moment, and everyone else will continue to push the case for an increasing share of the Japanese market.

Export Promotion

Mr. Amess: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many people in his Department are engaged in export promotion work.

Mr. Alan Clark: Approximately 730.

Mr. Amess: Is my hon. Friend aware that many companies in Basildon have achieved excellent export results over the last year and that they have certainly been helped in their endeavours by his officials? Will he join me in congratulating two companies in particular, Fisherman's Friend, which now exports to 37 countries and has recently won a West German order for £1 million, and a much smaller firm, Uniscan, which, after inventing a walking frame for the disabled, now exports to six countries?

Mr. Clark: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks about the officials in my Department. 1 am glad to extend congratulations to the companies that he mentioned. Of course, my Department will always do its best and, under the enterprise initiative announced yesterday my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, we shall be able to do more, especially for small businesses. In the end, success is due to the efforts and the commitment of the private sector itself.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Does the Minister recall that memorable day last year when we had all his huffing and puffing at the Dispatch Box about exports to Japan? Is he satisfied that since then there has been movement on this matter and, if so, could he tell us what movement there has been?

Mr. Clark: The puffing, which was not only from the Government side, related to exports from, not to, Japan. Alas, they are not in balance. However, exports to Japan have increased by 30 per cent. over the past year.

Mr. Wells: What evidence does my hon. Friend have that the export promotional activity of his Department is being hindered by the rise in the value of the pound?

Mr. Clark: None.

Mr. Cryer: Are the 730 people who are assisting in export promotion making any dent in our massive balance

of trade deficit in manufactured goods? When they assist British Leyland, for example, to recover a paltry proportion of exports to Japan, do they do it to help British manufacturing industry, or to fatten up British Leyland simply so that it can be sold off to the contributors of funds to the Tory party? If British Leyland is ever sold off it will be an outrage because of the vast quantities of taxpayers' money that have gone into that company. The citizens of Britain expect the Department to play its part in making sure that British Leyland is successful.

Mr. Clark: I always enjoy the hon. Gentleman's questions. He rather lost his way, I suspect deliberately, in that question, but I shall answer the first part of it.
Of course my Department plays its part in encouraging exports, and both the companies cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) have been active and successful in exporting. The new changes in emphasis announced by my right hon. and learned Friend are specifically directed towards encouraging and assisting exports by smaller firms, where we think the greatest potential lies, rather than the large firms about which the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) is so concerned.

Mr. Conway: Will my hon. Friend and some of his staff of 730 look at the help, advice and encouragement given to firms that are not in big city areas, which are often covered by chambers of commerce and trade and the like, but are perhaps in small rural areas, and enable them to take part in international trade fairs?

Mr. Clark: That is very important and it is one reason why, under the new arrangements, a further 60 members of staff of the Department are going into the regions. The British Overseas Trade Board has an active and effective role to play in assisting small companies to attend trade fairs and exhibitions abroad. If my hon. Friend has any specific cases that he wishes to raise with me, I shall, of course, closely follow them up.

Chemicals

Mr. Bernie Grant: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster by how much the trade balance in chemicals changed between the second quarter of 1979 and the second quarter of 1987; arid what are the comparable figures for the average, best and worst performing Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country.

Mr. Rogers: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster by how much Britain's share of world trade in chemicals changed between 1979 and 1986; and what was the comparable figure in the best, average and worst performing Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development country.

Mr. Atkins: Britain's trade balance in chemicals, as measured by the ratio of our exports to our imports, fell by 9 per cent. between 1979 and 1986. This was much the same as the OECD average. Among the top 10 OECD exporters of chemicals, France saw a 4 per cent. increase in her export-import ratio and the United States saw a fall of 39 per cent. Throughout this period the United Kingdom has had a substantial surplus on her trade in chemicals.
Between 1979 and 1986 Britain's share of OECD exports of chemicals was unchanged at 9·5 per cent. Among the OECD's major exporters of chemicals, the changes ranged from an increase of 13 per cent. in Japan's share to a decrease of 13 per cent. in the share held by the United States.

Mr. Grant: Is not the true situation that over the period imports have risen twice as fast as exports? Is this not yet another example of Government neglect of a wealth-producing manufacturing industry?

Mr. Atkins: The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. This is a success story, again. There are many success stories that we do not hear about. The United Kingdom has a substantial surplus on her trade in chemicals. It is the number one export industry in the manufacturing sector. We ought to tell the world, as I am doing and as the Opposition ought to be doing, that we are doing well.

Mr. Ashton: What about No. 7?

Mr. Speaker: Order. No. 6 comes before No. 7.

Mr. Rogers: Is the Minister not misleading the House by simply saying that we have a surplus in chemical exports as opposed to imports, when that surplus is rapidly diminishing? Since 1979 imports have increased by over 50 per cent. The Minister should give both sides of the story. He should point out to the House that the chemical industry's share of the British market is steadily declining and that, because of very low investment in chemicals, we are gradually falling behind the rest of the world.

Mr. Atkins: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's interest in chemical matters, but in this instance he is wrong. In proportionate terms, as I said in the previous answer, we are comparable to many other OECD countries. This is an important industry, and it is doing well. It is achieving great success at home and abroad, and we ought to congratulate it on its success rather than whinge about it.

Mr. Stern: Does my hon. Friend agree that, despite attempts by Opposition Members to poor-mouth the chemical industry, it is showing consistent success? If they are worried about lack of investment in the industry, will he draw to their attention the investment of well over £100 million by ICI, on the border of my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Cope)?

Mr. Atkins: My hon. Friend is quite right. ICI has achieved a great deal of success. I opened a plant in Fleetwood not so long ago, which again indicates a very great success. I repeat that this success story ought to be told to all who can hear.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Charles Kennedy.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. No points of order at Question Time.

Mr. Heffer: On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker: Order. No points of order at Question Time.

Mr. Helfer: The Liberal Benches are empty. Mr. Speaker: I know. I cannot help it.

British Steel

Mr. Butler: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he last met the chairman of British Steel; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Morley: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Steel to discuss the state of the industry.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Minister of Trade and Industry (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): I last met the chairman on 16 December. No date has yet been fixed for our next meeting. When we meet we discuss a wide range of issues relating to BSC and its prospects.

Mr. Butler: Did my right hon. and learned Friend discuss the £190 million half-year profit that BSC has made? Is that not a wonderful tribute to the management and men, who have shown great sense in not standing in the way of privatisation of the steel industry?

Mr. Clarke: I congratulated Sir Robert Scholey and all his colleagues on their excellent half-yearly results. We are looking forward optimistically to the full-year results that will be announced in due course. I agree with my hon. Friend that the results are a tribute to everyone working in the corporation, including the work force, who have achieved remarkable changes in the competitive position of the industry over the past few years.

Mr. Leigh: When my right hon. and learned Friend met the chairman of British Steel, did he discuss regional development grants? Did the chairman inform him that British Steel has often used regional development grants to rationalise and shed labour? Is it not a fact that regional development grants have often resulted in growing distortions in the economy and that the puny have been victimised to pay for the mighty? Is it not a disgrace that hon. Members cannot ask questions about the regional development grants because the hon. Member for Ross, Cromarty and Skye (Mr. Kennedy) was not present in the Chamber as the white smoke has not yet come out of Cowley street?

Mr. Clarke: Regional development grant was very useful in its time and no doubt British Steel made use of it. As I explained yesterday, the time has come to make better use of our money. I agree with my hon. Friend that it is a pity that I could not answer earlier questions tabled on the regional development grant. However, I understand that the Liberals and Social Democrats have taken an interest in policy. That is quite a novelty for them and they have not yet brought the results to the Floor of the House.

Dr. Reid: Is the Minister aware that, like the Liberals and Social Democrats, we in Lanarkshire have a major steel problem—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Dr. Reid: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I will temper my remarks.
Is the Minister aware that the optimistic bleatings that have come forth about the British Steel Corporation are regarded with wide scepticism among many people in Lanarkshire?—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] I will explain why. In particular, does the Minister realise that his supposed seven-year guarantee for Ravenscraig is seen by many as a timetable for execution over a seven-year period? In addition, why was there no mention in the


Minister's statement or in other statements of the tubes division of the British Steel Corporation. There are threats and ambiguities over that division? Will he take the opportunity today to assure us that there is a strategic future for the tubes division and that any necessary investment to ensure that future at the Clydesdale plant at Bellshill will be provided?

Mr. Clarke: In response to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question, I am responsible only for privatising the steel industry. I suspect that the other Steel is about to be privatised by his colleagues, but that is not a matter for me. With regard to the serious question about Lanarkshire, in my statement on the preparations for privatisation I was able to announce that the corporation in its commercial judgment had said that, subject to market conditions, there was a future for steelmaking on the Ravenscraig site for at least seven years. That should give considerable comfort to those in Lanarkshire. That is a tribute to the success that they have helped to achieve. The future of that plant will inevitably depend on those commercial judgments and the ability to compete in the market, regardless of who owns the industry.
There have been problems on Clydesdale with seamless tubes and there have been losses in that division of British Steel. However, I understand from my discussions with Sir Robert that the losses have now been reduced and there is no particular problem facing the future of Clydesdale at the moment.

Mr. Devlin: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that among the many letters that I have received from my constituents involved in the steel industry on Teesside there have been a number of messages of support for the Government's privatisation line and a widespread wish by the work force to be involved in the share issue and to take full advantage of an industry in which they believe and to which they are fully committed for the future?

Mr. Clarke: I am not surprised that my hon. Friend receives that reaction in his constituency, because the Redcar works are very successful and profitable. The workers can see the benefits of the greater commercial freedom that the Government have already given to the management in recent years. Therefore, they have no fears about a privatised company free of Government controls. At the moment we are preparing for privatisation, but the Government are committed to the policy of giving shareholding opportunities to workers in their own industry wherever that is remotely possible.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: As the Minister has now made it clear that he accepts responsibility for the privatisation of British Steel, will he ensure that all reports from his discussions with British Steel are brought back to the House for debate by hon. Members? Will he ensure at his next meeting with British Steel that he asks whether it has a strategy involving a move to a one-plate mill concept within the United Kingdom, which is of particular interest to the workers at Dalzell? Finally, will he ensure that the exact problems of Scotland are taken into consideration in any privatisation moves in order to ensure that Scotland does not continue to be seen as being on the periphery, as we need to have a Scottish steel headquarters to guarantee our jobs and futures because steel is so vital to our manufacturing base?

Mr. Clarke: The statement that I made before Christmas was a serious and considered report to the

House of the Government's proposals and of the corporation's commercial judgment of where the business stood. I shall ensure that the House is kept up to date and informed.
Some serious investment decisions regarding the plate mills will be required in the next few years, but, again, British Steel's position is that no investment decisions are needed now, and it will be a matter for it to decide in due course, probably after it becomes a private company. The Scots should not continue to regard themselves as necessarily peripheral to all these matters. Quite the reverse is true in view of the statements that the corporation was able to make in its commercial judgment about the future of steel making in Ravenscraig for at least seven years.

Mr. Grylls: In view of the real advantages, not least to the people who work in British Steel, of bringing forward privatisation, when will my right hon. and learned Friend be able to present the Bill to the House to speed this up?

Mr. Clarke: The Bill should come before the House in the next month or two. There will be considerable other preparatory work, and I cannot see privatisation being practicable or possible before the second half of this year at the earliest.

Mr. Morgan: Will the Minister tell the House what investment proposals he has before him from the British Steel Corporation? If he has none, will he explain to the House whether that causes him any concern, as the last raft of investment proposals from the BSC were made just over two years ago and are coming to an end? If anyone in the City is contemplating investment in the industry, or if the workers themselves were to believe that one could have a steel industry that could rely on past investment and not have investment proposals for perhaps two or three years, to have a healthy-looking balance sheet with a nice-looking bottom line just for the period of privatisation, would he not agree that that would be a serious confidence trick to play on any investor in the steel industry?

Mr. Clarke: A continuous process of investment is required in the steel industry and investment is taking place in various plants, including Ravenscraig. I have no proposals before me requiring the Government's formal consent, but they are likely to come in the near future and we do not intend to stop investment in the run-up to privatisation. Any proposals for further investment in continuous casting in Wales, for example, would be considered favourably by the Government, provided that they satisfy the usual commercial tests that we have to apply.

Mr. Holt: Would my right hon. and learned Friend care to note, when he next speaks to the chairman of British Steel, that the North Skelton brass band in my constituency, sponsored by British Steel, has just made a record with Mr. Acker Bilk and that some of the proceeds from the record will pay for schoolchildren from the Grangetown school in Redcar to go to Australia for the bicentenary celebrations? They will be the only musicians from this country. Well done, British Steel.

Mr. Clarke: I am glad that British Steel scores success stories, other than just returns on capital. British Steel is


an important part of the community in the north-east and I am glad that it is helping to take north-eastern music down under.

Mr. Austin Mitchell: In the light of the absence of major investment proposals, just how responsible is it to flog this major national asset back to the private sector, which has such a bad record on investment, particularly in steel? How irresponsible is it to do so when stock exchanges are falling?

Mr. Clarke: British Steel has an extremely good record of investment. The hon. Gentleman is mistaken if he assumes that, because there are no formal proposals requiring the Government's consent at present, British Steel has stemmed its investment effort. That is not the case. This is a continuous process and major schemes of investment must come forward for Government approval, which will be readily given, provided that they make commercial sense. That is something that we leave largely to British Steel in the first place.

Export Promotion

Mr. McLoughlin: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what he is doing to reduce the business burdens currently facing British exporters.

Mr. Alan Clark: The Government are committed to promoting enterprise and to minimising and reducing burdens on business. As part of the new enterprise initiative announced yesterday, the Department's export services will be made more attractive and more accessible to firms, particularly smaller firms.

Mr. McLoughlin: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he agree that, whatever the Government do, the most important thing for exporters is free and fair trade? To that extent I welcome his earlier answer about the improvement in sales to Japan, but does he agree that, however much the Government may help now, more must be done to ensure free and fair trade throughout the world, including the Japanese economy?

Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend is entirely right. My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary is on his way back from Japan. The House has long recognised his gifts in combining courtesy and firmness, which he will have deployed in Japan. However cordial the atmosphere at those meetings, he will have told his hosts that we shall judge them by the results in the aftermath.

Mr. Pike: Does that answer mean that the Government now recognise the importance of getting manufacturing industries into export surplus? On 10 December 1986 the Minister told me from the Dispatch Box that it it was neither the business nor the responsibility of the Government to get manufacturing industries into export surplus.

Mr. Clark: The Government have a role to play, principally in an advisory capacity. The Government must help manufacturers, especially small firms which have not yet broken into export markets, with guidance and encouragement on how to break into those markets, how to cope with form-filling, how to assess the possibilities of different markets and how to maintain themselves in the difficult early periods. In all those categories the new enterprise initiative will be extremely helpful, beamed as it is on smaller businesses.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: Is my hon. Friend aware of the recent excellent export figures announced by the British Textile Confederation, which show that last year British exports to most major European countries increased by 15 to 20 per cent. and exports to Japan increased by 23 per cent.? Is he equally aware of the grave disquiet of many carpet manufacturers about the illegal subsidies given by one of our major competitors—Belgium—to its carpet manufacturers? I have in mind especially the payment by the Belgian Government of £3·5 million to Beaulieu, the biggest carpet manufacturer in the world, which, despite a recent European Court ruling, has not been repaid. Will my hon. Friend make representations at the highest level to make sure that it is repaid and that similar practices do not recur?

Mr. Clark: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the achievements of the textile industry, which has made a notable recovery from its serious difficulties — a recovery in no small measure due to our maintenance of the multi-fibre arrangement, which I hope will continue to exist for some years.
As my hon. Friend said, there has been an especially flagrant breach of the understandings, with the Belgians subsidising their carpet industry. We continue to pursue the matter. Recently, we made representations to the Belgian Government. So far there appears to have been no response to the judgment of the European Court, but I assure my hon. Friend that we treat the matter with the utmost gravity and will continue to maintain pressure until satisfaction is achieved.

Mr. Blair: Will the Minister be more specific about how the new Government gimmick, the department of enterprise, is supposed to help export promotion? Can he point in this document to one penny of extra cash resources committed or to a glimmer of a new idea?

Mr. Clark: The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) has not yet surfaced during this Question Time, so we must be content with the repetitious performance of the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair). He has mentioned the matter several times. The fact that there is no additional money may upset Opposition Members, but it is a source of satisfaction to Conservative Members that we are achieving those results without additional expenditure. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said, we must adapt to changed circumstances and introduce more sophistication and selectivity. We believe that the results will justify our actions.

Mr. Brazier: Will my hon. Friend consider the impact of the dock labour scheme on the country's exporters?

Mr. Clark: That is a subject for my hon. Friends at the Department of Employment, which I vacated not all that recently.

Space Industry

Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy weof Lancaster what further action he intends taking to promote and safeguard British interests in the space industry.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I am discussing with United Kingdom companies the space projects to which they


attach importance, and we are taking a fresh look at United Kingdom civil space activities, both nationally and in the European Space Agency.

Mr. Ross: When will the Minister be able to tell us exactly what he intends to do? Some of us supported him when he came back from his meeting in Europe. He will recall that he said at the time that he was going to revamp the British National Space Centre. When can we hear the proposals, and when will those working in the industry know what those proposals are, so that they can start planning to deal with the losses which they say they will incur as a result of being excluded from programmes in Europe — regardless of whether those programmes are good or bad—because of the decision not to participate?

Mr. Clarke: We have made no cut in our present plans. As I have said, I am discussing with companies how they see the future Indeed, I have arranged meetings with the managements of two important companies tomorrow.
Obviously, we wish to reach conclusions over the next month or two. However, I see this as a continuing process of ensuring that we obtain good commercial and scientific value out of the commitment to space that we retain.

Mr. Wilkinson: Important as it is to listen to the views of commercial companies, it is for Governments to have a strategic vision of the importance of space activities, for their strategic interest and also for their commercial benefits. That is the case in the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China, the Indian sub-continent, Japan and 13 of the 14 countries in the European Space Agency—particularly, of course, France, which has kept Europe in the space business.

Mr. Clarke: The strategic view that the Government have to take must have some aims, and those aims must be commercial, scientific and consistent with the public interest. With respect to my hon. Friend, it is not good enough to point to other countries and say that if they spend a certain proportion of their gross domestic product on space we must do the same. India is always cited. I believe that it spends its money on education satellites, for understandable reasons. We are already spending large sums in the space industry, and we are committed to continuing to do so, but, talking to private companies, we find a wide range of views on what our commercial and scientific objectives should be. We must also explore with them the prospect of the private sector putting a bit more money into the efforts that it wishes to pursue.

Mr. Stott: The Minister is only too well aware of our views on his recent performance at The Hague. They are not very complimentary. Notwithstanding that, however, will he tell us what Government policy will be in respect of companies that are currently being funded for, and are engaged in, work on European Space Agency projects—particularly Logica, which is a leading multinational team of companies developing software for all of the Columbus programme, not just the polar platform? What will happen to projects such as that, and those developed by British Aerospace, in the future, given his statement at The Hague?
At the same time, perhaps the Minister will remind his hon. Friend the Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) that the Wigan metropolitan brass band is also going to Australia for the bicentennial celebrations.

Mr. Clarke: We decided at The Hague that we were not going to join certain optional programmes. I have met the executives from Logica, which is one of the organisations affected. We shall get work in those projects in which we choose to participate, and not in those in which we choose not to participate.
The way to judge such matters is not simply to say that a company will receive a contract and that therefore we must participate. We might as well give Logica the cheque if that is our sole interest. We are prepared to fund arty work in which we trust that British companies will obtain a large proportion of the contracts available, as long as we are pursuing serious commercial and scientific objectives.
I am delighted to hear about the brass band from Wigan, but I do not think that it is likely to be able to travel to Australia by Hotol in the very near future.

Mr. Sayeed: Does my right hon. and learned Friend's Department believe that Hotol has commercial potential?

Mr. Clarke: Work is just about to be completed on what is called a proof of concept study. When we have the results of that to hand, I intend to have further discussions with the companies that have been involved with the Government in taking the project so far.

Inner-city Policy

Mr. Allen: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster how many people in his Department are employed on inner-city policy.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Inner-city policy is an important part of my Department's responsibilities and all members of staff take account of it in their work. Policy is coordinated by the inner cities unit, which employs 26 staff. There are also 88 people in the inner-city task forces, as well as some staff in my regional offices who work with the interdepartmental city action teams.

Mr. Allen: What policies does the right hon. and learned Gentleman have to assist the outer cities?

Mr. Clarke: The outer cities are benefiting considerably from the general revival in the British economy and the rapid fall in the level of unemployment. I agree that there are outer estates of some cities where social problems and the problems associated with unemployment are just as severe as those found in inner-city areas. Any lessons found while we develop new policies in inner cities which promote the physical redevelopment of cities and training and employment opportunities for their residents can happily be applied to outer-city districts as we go along.

Mr. Nicholas Bennett: My right hon. and learned Friend's reply will be a great encouragement to those of us who represent rural constituencies which nevertheless contain towns which have similar social and economic problems to those experienced in some inner cities. I am delighted to hear that he will pass on any solutions.

Mr. Clarke: We help with the development of employment—creating activity in rural areas through such organisations as the Council for Small Industries in Rural Areas. I am sure my hon. Friend agrees that the problems in rural areas are sometimes different in nature and background from those in cities, but anything that we develop which speeds up the physical redevelopment of cities and the creation of new work and business opportunities ought to be applied wherever it is relevant.

Mr. Caborn: I do not know whether to offer the Minister congratulations or commiserations on the announcement that was made just before Christmas, now that he has responsibility for co-ordinating all the Government's inner-city policies. In that position, will he address the problems of ignorance and utter confusion in inner cities about grant regimes and the Government's policy towards inner cities? Will he respond to the ever-growing calls, which now embrace the Confederation of British Industry, the Trades Union Congress, local authorities and the churches, which produced "Faith in the City", and the Prince of Wales, who only a few weeks ago said that the Government must take account of local authorities and respond to local needs and opinions? Will the Minister produce a White Paper in the near future setting out how policies for inner cities will be coordinated?

Mr. Clarke: By making the appointment my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister clearly felt that we needed to explain more clearly the policies that we are developing. The Government know exactly what the relationship is between urban development corporations, inner-city task forces, city action teams and enterprise zones. We work well together and will continue to do so. Where coordination is called for, as I work for the Prime Minister, I look forward to being involved. There will certainly be a White Paper, which we hope will encourage yet more private sector companies to become involved with us and local authorities which want to take a positive view of these matters. In my work so far I have worked closely with Conservative-controlled city authorities in Nottingham and Wolverhampton, and Labour-controlled ones in Birmingham and Hartlepool. The hon. Gentleman knows, given where he stands in the Labour party, that there are some councils where it is rather more difficult to work.

Mr. Tim Smith: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the key to a successful inner-city policy is not the number of people employed in his or any other Department, but the extent to which successful coordination, now, I am glad to say, organised by my right hon. and learned Friend, encourages private sector investment in inner-city areas and the jobs that go with it?

Mr. Clarke: I agree strongly with my hon. Friend. Some Opposition Members judge any policy by how many staff it employs and how much public money it spends. We judge these things by results, and they are best achieved by bringing private sector business, initiative and employment back into inner cities. That is what we are trying to do.

Manufactured Goods

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what is the latest balance of trade in manufactured goods.

Mr. Alan Clark: In the first 11 months of 1987 there was a deficit on trade in manufactures of £6·5 billion.

Mr. Canavan: Will the Minister now tell us the whole truth, which is that his Government have managed the remarkable feat of turning a surplus of over £5 billion in 1978 into a deficit of over £6 billion in 1987, that this deficit is the worst ever recorded in Britain's industrial

history and that it is a direct consequence of the abysmal failure of the Government's economic and industrial strategy?

Mr. Clark: It is not a function of economic policy at all. In fact, half the deficit is comprised of semi-manufactures and intermediate finished manufactured products which are used for production in this country and contribute to employment. Approximately the other half is accounted for by consumer choice. The Government are not some giant purchasing agency on behalf of the British consumer. Why does the hon. Member not speak to his own constituents? Why does he not ask them why they prefer foreign goods? Why does he not admonish them? It would not put his vote up, but he might learn something from it.

Mr. John Marshall: Does my hon. Friend agree that the best hope for manufacturing industry is the creation of a genuine internal market in Europe by 1992?

Mr. Clark: The creation of the internal market will give us a consumer market of some 330 million people. It will be the largest in the world, larger than the United States or Japan. Progress is being made towards the removal of barriers, which should bring about that market by 1992. The Internal Market Council on which I represent the Department, meets every month in Brussels or Luxembourg.

Mr. James Lamond: Is the Minister aware that the textile industry's contribution to the balance of trade will be severely damaged by the recent very liberal agreement reached with Turkey on the import of yarns into this country, which appears to me to undermine the MFA of which he spoke so warmly a few minutes ago? Is his Department looking at that?

Mr. Clark: I have looked at it very closely and would be very glad to do something about it, but unfortunately the industry cannot produce evidence of injury. If it produces evidence of serious injury, it will enable me to take action to reduce the volume of imports from Turkey. I have been at great pains to try to secure such evidence, but none has been forthcoming.

Mr. Latham: Is my hon. Friend aware that Conservative Members, at any rate, do not take the stone-age view that nothing matters but manufactured goods? We are surprised that Opposition Members have no interest in the output of hundreds of thousands of people who work in tourism, insurance and many other non-manufacturing industries.

Mr. Clark: Yes, that is true, but I will not go the whole way with my hon. Friend. I attach great importance to the performance of manufacturing industry and I regret very much that we are still in deficit in that sector. It is the only sector in our whole trade balance where we are in deficit. I am optimistic that it will slowly be corrected, because exports are rising faster than imports, but I attach importance to the sector and I do not believe that the service sector, however successful and however many people it employs, can ever be an effective substitute for it.

Commercial Vehicles

Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster what figures he has for the level of exports and imports of light commercial vehicles in the first half of 1987.

Mr. Alan Clark: I have run off the dial, so the House should be prepared for some extemporisation in the answer.
The value of exports in the first half of 1987 was £61 million; the figure for imports was £148 million. These figures represent an improvement in the balance of trade of some £30 million over the comparable period for 1986.

Mr. Oppenheim: Is it not true that many of the problems suffered by the commercial vehicle industry were caused by Government meddling in the 1960s and 1970s, which forced factories to go to uneconomic parts of the country and which forced Leyland Trucks to cross-subsidise Austin Morris cars? Is it not also true that there

was poor management and appalling labour relations? Is it not encouraging that under the more profitable economic climate which the Goverment have helped to produce our commercial vehicle industry is beginning to produce better results?

Mr. Clark: I agree with my hon. Friend. I regretted it very much when Leyland Trucks, which was one of the finest truck makers in the world at that time, lost its independence. It has taken some time to effect the recovery which is now so clearly evident in the figures, which show, as I said, an improvement of some £30 million over last year.

Questions to Ministers

Mr. Andrew MacKay: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The point of order arises directly out of questions today. You will have noted on the Order Paper that in the first 21 questions which were likely to be reached, four had been put down by hon. Members who belong to the Liberal party or the SDP. Not one of those hon. Members has been present. Do you agree that that is a gross discourtesy to you and to the House? Do you also agree that those who put down questions, and who were not fortunate to be high enough on the Order Paper but who have patiently waited, find it frustrating that those hon. Members cannot be bothered to turn up to ask their questions?

Mr. Speaker: I am not certain that that is a matter for me.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have to keep a balance between the parties. On yesterday's statement by my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, 34 hon. Members were called. You called fifth in that session the hon. Member for Gordon (Mr. Bruce), who I believe is the Alliance spokesman on trade and industry, yet he has not had the decency or the courtesy to be in the House today for questions to the Department.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I think I can deal with this matter. It is a courtesy that if hon. Members cannot he present for questions they should let the Chair know so that those questions are not called. That happened in some cases today. As to the statement yesterday, I hope that hon. Members who were not called then got some happiness by having been called today, as I had promised.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Chair has been placed in some difficulty today. We all appreciate the problem of you having to check whether questions had been crossed off; some had and some had not. We understand the dilemma. It was put to me that in the merger the Liberals and the SDP were going through what is known as a negative care terminal episode. That is an American medical expression for death. I think you could resolve the problem, if you wanted to, by finding a name for them. I have got two. One is Lombard—I shall not tell you what it stands for. The other is PVC—plastic politics.

Mr. Speaker: Ingenious.
Later—

Mr. Tony Marlow: Is it proper through you, Mr. Speaker, for me to help the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who drew the House's attention to the fact that today has seen the birth of a new stillborn party? The hon. Gentleman was seeking to find out the title of that party. I understand that the chosen name is the SLD, which is an acronym for "sold down the river" party.

Ministers (Rules of Procedure)

Mr. Tony Benn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday I raised with you, as I have with you and your predecessors over a number of years, the question of the rules of procedure for Ministers. I asked you whether, in the light of the incident that occurred at the end of the debate on the Second Reading of the Housing (Scotland) Bill, it would be possible for them to be published. You very kindly provided me with a letter saying that the narrow conditions applied to Ministers in respect of their interests were published in the report of the Royal Commission on standards of conduct and are in the Library.
The point I wish to raise with you, Mr. Speaker, is a rather broader one, as I thought I had made clear yesterday. In 1982 and 1986 I tried to get the rules of procedure put in the Library. I am not querying your decision when you said that it could not be done. I then submitted them in an appendix to the Treasury Select Committee on the Treasury and Civil Service which declined to publish them in an annex. I greatly regret this.
I am not querying any of the rulings, Mr. Speaker, but we shall have a debate on Friday on official information. No doubt you will confirm your decision not to put the rules of procedure in the Library, so I want to put it on the record that this puts us in a very grave difficulty. I believe that the House should know under what restraints certain hon. Members are placed by their obligations to the Crown. I should be grateful if you, Mr. Speaker, would accept what I say as a submission of considerable constitutional importance, although I do not query your ruling that they cannot be published.

Mr. Speaker: I have written to the right hon. Gentleman. He quoted from only part of my letter. It may be for the convenience of the House if I confirm, because other hon. Members are interested in this matter, that the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) put a question to the Prime Minister on 26 November 1987, and she confirmed that the guidance was unchanged. The detailed rules were set out in full in Hansard, at columns 292–93, on 20 March 1980, and these are readily available to hon. Members.
Later—

Mr. Benn: I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for confirming the ruling in your letter. I intend to publish the rules of procedure and claim privilege in so doing.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On the subject raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Ewing), and me, it may be within your knowledge, Mr. Speaker, that two questions have been accepted by the Table Office, asking the Prime Minister to clarify the rules of conduct of Ministers and specifically to put financial and other interests in the Library, and asking what steps she has taken to see that the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), has complied with the rules governing ministerial conduct, with particular reference to the divestment of financial interests, in so far as they relate to his dealings with the Housing (Scotland) Bill, and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Would it not be for the good order of the House, Mr. Speaker, if, until those answers are given by the Prime


Minister on Friday, no final steps were taken to set up the composition of the Standing Committee on the Housing (Scotland) Bill? My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East and I believe that there are serious considerations, even forth of Scotland, on the matter. This really goes to the heart of conduct in the House of Commons. If the ministerial guidelines have been changed, the House should surely be told.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has put down a question on the Order Paper which is in order and will be answered. As to his second point, he should make representatons to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection.

Debates (Calling of Speakers)

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you give guidance to the House in regard to the calling of speakers? On previous occasions when the matter was raised, you said that you would call a speaker from the Liberal Benches and from the SDP Benches, and on many occasions you treat them separately in debates. Can you give any guidance about what will happen under the new situation, whatever that may be? How will the group of the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), which is quite separate and refused to merge, be allocated time?

Mr. Speaker: I cannot recollect that I have ever discussed or given guidance about how the occupant of the Chair calls hon. Members. It would by very unwise to do that.

BILL PRESENTED

REGISTRATION OF COMMERCIAL LOBBYING INTERESTS

Mr. Bob Cryer, supported by Mr. Ernie Ross, Mr. Tony Benn, Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours, Mr. Andrew F. Bennett, Mr. Martin Flannery, Mr. George Howarth, Mr. Dave Nellist, Mr. Pat Wall, Mr. Dennis Skinner, Mr. Eric S. Heffer and Mr. Max Madden, presented a Bill to provide a public register of organisations who carry out the lobbying of Parliament for commercial gain, the disclosure of expenditure by such organisations; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 22 January and to be printed. [Bill 79.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c

Ordered,
That the Customs Duties (ECSC) Order 1987 (S.I., 1987, No. 2184) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Alan Howarth.]

Medical Examination of Children at Risk

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law relating to child care to enable a social worker or health visitor who believes a child to be at risk to require the parent or guardian to produce the child for medical examination within three days.
The intention of the Bill is to fill a gap in the powers available to those charged with the onerous responsibilities of child protection. It is estimated that 150 to 200 children are killed annually by their parents or guardians. There are about 30,000 children on local authority at-risk registers. None of us can fail to experience a strong emotional reaction to such cases. We have seen in recent months many sensational and censorious responses to the reports of physical and sexual child abuse and to cases involving the death of a child.
However, sadly, there is nothing new about child abuse and neglect. We may have updated our way of understanding and describing the syndrome, but descriptions of barbarous treatment are widespread in literature and popular culture, with tales of infanticide, ritual sacrifice, mutilation, flogging and exploitation. Legislation was introduced to protect animals in 1822, but the first children's charter was not introduced until 1889.
Since the 1973 Maria Colwell tragedy, there have been more than 20 similar inquiries into cases of child abuse. Each inquiry is a costly, frequently confrontational and highly charged event in which the social workers are too often treated as whipping boys. We have to find a 'way forward that takes into account the lessons we learn following Mrs. Justice Butler-Sloss's Cleveland inquiry, in which there appears to have been an idiosyncratic, overzealous approach by one group of professionals and parental rights seem to have been disregarded.
We should also learn from the lessons of the harrowing series of tragic individual cases such as Heidi Koseda, Kimberley Carlile, Jasmine Beckford and Tyra Henry, where somehow the child slipped through the net arid where, even in the light of professional or public anxiety, the child was simply not seen and the parents' sensitivities appear to have been given excessive weight and the child's rights disregarded.
Our present child care law, as everyone acknowledges, is untidy and unsatisfactory. The legislation is spread over several Acts and is in need of simplification arid structuring into one new Act. There is widespread support for the simplification and modification set out in the White Paper "The Law on Child Care and Family Services". That major overhaul of child care law is eagerly awaited. It is intended
to provide a clearer framework for the provision of child care services to families and for the protection of children at risk.
Few hon. Members are aware of the skill required to treat or assess child abuse cases. The task of the social worker, health visitor, general practitioner and others entrusted with child protection is highly skilled and requires careful judgment.
There will have been widespread encouragement obtained from the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister yesterday when she referred to such cases which pose
sensitive problems to social workers and other people who have to decide when to go into a home because they think that


a child is being abused, neglected or ill-treated. It is not an easy question for anyone to answer, but it is supremely important and involves social workers, legislators and neighbours."—[Official Report, 12 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 142.]
Those involved in child protection frequently have to walk a tightrope between building up parental competence and confidence and encouraging parents to succeed in the task of child rearing and, at the same time, not forgetting that their first duty must be the protection of the child rather than the parents.
If there are clear and serious grounds for worry about a child, there are powers available to obtain a place of safety order allowing the child to be removed and detained for 28 days. Section 40 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 enables a magistrate to authorise a police constable to enter the premises. What is lacking is a lower order, an order to ensure that a child about whom there is not deep and widespread concern is seen.
It is very easy for parents to say that the child is away or absent. It is not only abusing families who dislike the intervention of health visitors or social workers in their everyday lives. The purpose behind my Bill is to ensure that there is a power to require the parents to produce the child for a medical examination. They escort the child to the medical examination. They are not handing over the parental rights and the child is not removed traumatically from their presence.
In the review of child care law the Government propose a new emergency protection order. This makes up for many of the shortcomings of the place of safety order. The parents have greater say in the procedure and it does not last for such a long time. It is not good enough, however, to argue that this provides the minimal power which would be required to ensure that the child receives a medical assessment with the least possible offence being taken by the parents about interference with what many of us regard as our private business.
I believe that the new minimal power outlined in my Bill will play an integral part, with the many other initiatives and measures that have been developed in recent years. The highly regarded chief inspector of social services at the Department of Health and Social Security, Bill Utting, has tirelessly sought to improve standards of care, emphasising that the first priority must be given to the child, clarifying the powers already available for those involved in child protection. Consideration has been given to better practice guidelines for social workers, nurses and doctors in the clinical diagnosis of sexual abuse and the conduct of child abuse inquiries.
Other Departments are also involved. The Home Office has taken steps to allow children to provide evidence by video link and to remove the need that their evidence should be corroborated. In the education service, there is a greater awareness of the responsibilities of and the contribution that can be made by teachers.
Many of us are looking forward to the implementation of the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for

Westbury (Mr. Walters) to amend the Children and Young Persons Act 1986, which allows greater regulation and control over those who have been sent home on trial from care. Certainly, the Tyra Henry and Jasmine Beckford cases might have benefited from such measures.
In addition, it is important to introduce this new measure. A similar power has been recommended by the commission of inquiry into the death of Kimberley Carlile. The chairman, in his excellent, thoughtful and evenhanded report, argues for a child assessment order. The National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children has endorsed the measure. The National Children's Home has offered its support. The National Children's Bureau, which has given a great deal of thought to the best way of protecting children, welcomes this as a necessary halfway house order.
The fact that the order does not give the local authority the right to remove the child should reassure innocent parents while encouraging social workers to ensure that the child is seen, in the medical sense—the child needs to be seen physically, to be weighed and assessed. Percentile charts need to be consulted to see whether the child is thriving and flourishing.
The Association of Directors of Social Service and the British Association of Social Workers have also welcomed the initiative. Indeed, I have been impressed by what, so far, has been the unanimous support of the groups that I consulted on the Bill in the short time available.
The Bill provides a discreet, specific measure that would improve significantly the powers available to social workers and health visitors, and I believe that it will play an important part in the protection of children at risk while minimising any needless distress for parents, should the concerns about the child's welfare prove groundless. The Bill covers a clear area of need, recognised by last year's White Paper, but not sufficiently met in the proposals for legislation.
If, by some misfortune, the Bill fails to reach the statute book, I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will find a way to incorporate it in his own proposals for legislation, which I hope will be brought forward at the earliest opportunity.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Virginia Bottomley, Mr. Tony Baldry, Mr. Alex Carlile, Mr. Tim Devlin, Mr. Frank Field, Sir Barney Hayhoe, Mr. Robert B. Jones, Miss Emma Nicholson, Mr. Roger Sims and Mr. Peter Thurnham.

MEDICAL EXAMINATION OF CHILDREN AT RISK

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law relating to child care to enable a social worker or health visitor who believes a child to be at risk to require the parent or guardian to produce the child for medical examination within three days: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 29 April and to be printed. [Bill 80.]

Orders of the Day — Social Security Bill

As amended (in the Standing Committee), further considered.

Clause 1

ATTENDANCE ALLOWANCE

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I beg to move amendment No.1 in page 1, line 15, leave out from 'be' to the end of line 17 and insert 'immediately available'.
The amendment deals with a decision in the case of Mrs. Dorothy Moran with regard to attendance allowance that was first made by the relevant authorities and then overturned by the Court of Appeal.
Mrs. Moran's application for the night time attendance allowance was turned down on the grounds that, although there seemed to be little doubt that she needed the assistance and support of her husband, he was not necessarily awake throughout all the hours of the night. However, clear evidence was given to the board that he was quite capable of waking should his wife suffer a crisis that was totally without warning.
Mrs. Moran's application was rejected, but on advice she went to the Court of Appeal, which overturned the previous decision. Her case has now gone back to the board for further consideration. It would be helpful, now or at some later stage, if the Minister could pursue this matter. Even though the case has returned to the board, Mrs. Moran has received neither judgment nor money. Clearly, that was not what the Court of Appeal envisaged when it granted her appeal. I do not believe that the Government had that in mind when they spoke of their intention to make sure that cases in the pipeline were sympathetically considered. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will agree to pursue the matter. I wish to put on record that I have been asked to make that plea by my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). Unfortunately he is attending the Select Committee on Social Services and is unable to be present to raise this matter.
We hope that the Government will give some consideration to the proposal in our amendment. I hope that they will agree to consult perhaps a little more widely than they have done on some other alternatives—about their new wording. Throughout our debates on the Bill, the Government have insisted that all they are seeking to do is to restore the law to what it was before the Moran judgment was given. We have expressed the anxiety, felt by many involved in such work, that the new wording carries with it certain dangers and could be interpreted more restrictively than the wording before the Moran judgment. I recognise that the Minister has already said that he will consider some of the alternatives that have been proposed, but he has said that the Government remain of the view that their wording will mean that the law is no tighter than it was before the Moran judgment.
With the greatest possible respect to the Minister, it is clear that the Court of Appeal did not agree with the Government that the wording previously used in the Social

Security Act 1975 gave effect to their intentions. Therefore, I hope that there will be wider consultation, especially with the charities which represent disabled people and which deal with the operation of attendance allowance.
We are especially worried about someone having to be awake to qualify for the night time condition and the introduction of the words "at frequent intervals". We believe that those words may lead to a tighter interpretation of the law. Obviously, at present we have no case law to consider regarding the Government's new formulation, but the word "frequent" is used regarding the daytime condition for attendance allowance, and the Court of Appeal has said that, in that context, "frequent" means several times and not just once or twice.
The reason for having slightly different conditions to qualify for the payment of night time cover and night time care is that, by obvious definition, night time care is more onerous on the carer. Therefore, it has always been the case that it is slightly easier to satisfy the night time condition than the daytime condition. We are worried that, as the law is now proposed, the night time condition may become more stringent and on all fours with the operation of the day time condition.
I must remind the Minister of the problems that occur even now under the existing law. He may recall that, in the context of the denial of attendance allowance to children under the age of two, observations have been made about children suffering from thalassaemia major and the fact that those children have to wear a pump to administer the drug Desferal during the night, and the difficulties that that causes.
The Minister may also recall that in the context of that debate attention was drawn in one particular example to the way in which the parents of the child involved need to get up at regular intervals, and so have badly disrupted nights. The problems of those parents are not recognised by the award of attendance allowance. We are worried that, even now, people who many of us might think should be more seriously considered for attendance allowance are not meeting the conditions, and obviously that colours our anxiety that this problem may be exacerbated in future.
I have received representations from officials of the city of Sheffield who remain worried that a large number of people will be deprived of attendance allowance by the new wording and who have drawn attention to the problems of those with mental illness, of those suffering from Alzheimer's disease and of diabetics who have hypoglycaemic attacks. They are often unable to call for help, but may be able to put carers on the alert. It may be enough for someone to be present and able to respond to an appeal for assistance, although that person may be sleeping lightly, but alertly.
We believe that the wording that the Government are putting into law is more stringent than at present and carries a danger that people who are now able to satisfy the tests for attendance allowance might not meet the new conditions. I hope the Minister will recognise that this is a serious attempt to offer alternative wording which the courts can interpret. We recognise that the commissioners suggested that they might have difficulties in extracting a principle from the decision in the Moran case. We hope that the alternative wording that we are offering will enable them to extract the principle and prevent the denial of attendance allowance to those who at present would be awarded it.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Portillo): I shall begin where the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) began and, indeed, where the whole matter began, with Mrs. Moran, and with the point which the hon. Lady raised on behalf of the hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) who, obviously, has shown the closest attention to that case and the issues that it has raised.
It is true that Mrs. Moran has not yet received her judgment. The attendance allowance board is an independent adjudicating authority and I cannot comment on its deliberations. However, I shall explain to the House what the present position is. Following the Court of Appeal judgment, the full attendance allowance board reconsidered Mrs. Moran's case in the light of the judgment in May 1987. Details of its provisional conclusions were sent to Mrs. Moran on 19 May together with copies of all the evidence considered by the board.
In keeping with the board's usual practice, Mrs. Moran was then asked to submit comments on the provisional conclusions and any further evidence that she might have to support her case. She responded on 25 September through Mr. Nicholas Warren of the Birkenhead resource unit, who sent the board the submission on her behalf, together with the report of the consultant neurologist, Dr. Chadwick, and statements from Mr. Moran and Mr. Pugh of the British Epilepsy Association. The full board reconsidered its provisional conclusions in the light of the papers from Mr. Warren and a reasoned statement of its final decision should be sent shortly to Mrs. Moran and her representatives. By that, I understand that she will be hearing from the board within a few days.
I have listened with great care to the hon. Lady's arguments and am grateful for the constructive spirit in which she has spoken, as she did so often in Committee. Much of what has been said today echoes the points made in Committee. I remind the House of what we think the aim of the allowance is and always has been. It is to recognise the extra cost and disruption to normal family life that arises from the attendance needs of severely disabled people.
At night, when the normal state of the members of the household is that of sleep and quiet, disruption can be caused because the disabled person requires frequent attention with his bodily functions or because his condition requires that someone should continually supervise him—that is, be awake and watching over him for a prolonged period or at frequent intervals so that he does not put himself or other people at risk of substantial danger. That is the basis on which attendance allowance operated before the Court of Appeal's decision in March last year.
4 pm
I do not think anyone would dispute that disruption of a household at night by the attendance needs of a severely disabled person is the proper basis for entitlement to the allowance. The Court of Appeal, however, pushed the scope of the allowance wider than that. Its finding was that in some circumstances the disabled person's need for attendance did not cause disruption. Continual supervision might be exercised even by someone who was asleep, albeit ready to wake up if and when danger occurred. Such danger does not have to be common, with the proviso that it is not so remote a possibility that it should reasonably be disregarded.
That is why the Government were then faced with a judicial interpretation of continual supervision at night which was not consistent with our previous understanding of what was entailed. In our view, the court's interpretation was no longer a satisfactory expression of the criteria that must be satisfied. Clause 1 does no more than spell out what we believe is a reasonable and proper expression of the criteria, consistent with the position that existed before March 1987.
I want to be explicit with the hon. Lady. It is absolutely not our intention to create conditions any different from those that existed before the Moran judgment. That is what we are striving to achieve. I give the hon. Lady my absolute assurance on that. We believe that the clause merely returns the law to its position before the Court of Appeal decision. I have listened carefully to the fears that the hon. Lady expressed, and I am pleased that she has thought it right to give examples of what her concerns revolve around. She fears that clause 1 represents some tightening of the criteria as they operated before the Moran judgment.
We and the attendance allowance board are clear about the sort of people we want to be covered by the new formula. They are the same people as those whose disabilities and accompanying need for supervision at night would have caused the board to award an allowance before the Moran judgment. That was precisely the specification we put to our lawyers when we asked them to draft the clause. They have assured us that such people are fully covered by the new provision. Anyone who would have been eligible for the allowance before the judgment will be just as eligible after Royal Assent to the Bill.
The hon. Lady is right: ultimately the interpretation of the law is a matter for the courts. In the absence of judicial interpretation, both Oppositions and Governments depend on legal advice about the effects of legislation. Therefore, I reinforce my assurance to the hon. Lady and say that we shall certainly want to consult our lawyers again to draw their attention to the points the hon. Lady has made, and to her examples. I shall not now attempt to debate with her the meaning of the word "frequent", or any other word. I shall take the matter back to our lawyers, and assure her that I shall look into the matter and ensure that her points are considered. As I said, our understanding is that the clause does nothing more than take us back to pre-Moran.
In Committee, the hon. Lady mentioned her concern about the expressions "at night," "during the night," and "throughout the night". I understand that the words that we have used—"at night"—make no difference to the level or pattern of attendance required at night. The same sort of people will continue to qualify under the night condition, as drafted; similarly, the same sort of people will qualify under the night watching over condition as they did under the night supervision condition, as interpreted before the Moran judgment. That was my understanding. Again, I give that assurance.
I cannot accept the Opposition's amendment, because the words the hon. Lady is proposing would take us to a post-Moran position. I dare say that that is what she would like, but the "immediately available" that she is proposing is, in our view, unnecessary and takes us to the post-Moran position that we are trying to avoid. The amendment is unnecessary because clause I ensures that the criteria for attendance allowance at night are returned to a proper and equitable footing. I have already assured


the House that the application of clause 1 will have the same practical effect as was the situation before the Court of Appeal judgment. We oppose broadening the attendance allowance in the way that resulted from the Moran judgment.
The hon. Lady made the point that it is important to give clear guidance to the courts in this matter. The "immediately available" formulation suffers from the problem that it is not a clear form of guidance to disabled people, the courts or the other bodies that we will ask to enforce the legislation. The form of words that we have suggested will prove workable, subject to the assurance I have given to the hon. Lady— that I want to check it further with the lawyers and draw to their attention the points she has made.

Mrs. Beckett: This has been an interesting, although brief, exchange. I recall that Ministers said in Committee that the effect of the Moran judgment would be financially neutral and that the only reason why they were persevering with the clause, however worded, was to tidy up the law, because they had not been able to abstract principles from the Moran judgment. However, in a sense, we were hoping to offer them in the amendment a formulation that would enable them to extract principles that would tidy up the law without, perhaps, tightening it as we fear; and also, perhaps, to give effect to the law as the Court of Appeal had wished it to be. However, I am grateful to the Minister for his agreement to consult again and more widely. That will be helpful to those in another place when they examine this part of the Bill, and I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendtnent, by leave, withdrawn.

Mrs. Beckett: I beg to move amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 9, at end insert:—
'(3) In subsection 35(2A) of the Social Security Act 1975, after "prescribed", in the first place where that word occurs, there shall be inserted the words "or who requires parenteral nutrition other than as an in-patient in a hospital or similar institution".'.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). Sadly. I see he is not with us at this moment. but I hope that he will join us shortly. He drew to my attention and, through me, to the attention of the Committee, the problems of patients who suffer such illnesses as Crohn's disease and who find themselves, in order to sustain life and receive nourishment, reliant upon a form of treatment called total parenteral nutrition. That was unfamiliar to me and, I think, to most hon. Members on the Committee, but I understand from my hon. Friend that apart from the interest that he has developed from his constituency casework, it is a treatment which —fortunately or unfortunately he has undergone himself. It involves the placement of a central venous catheter which lies in a vein above the right side of the heart and exits through the skin at the front of the chest.
I am confident that my hon. Friend can address the circumstances of the treatment much better than I can, as he has had the experience, but the main point in relation to attendance allowance and the conditions under which the necessity for treatment arises is the comparison that has been drawn between total parenteral nutrition, because of which a patient relies on the support of a machine to sustain life, and renal dialysis.
It may be within the memory of a number of hon. Members that, at first, renal dialysis did not automatically

qualify a patient for the payment of attendance allowance. Over a period, so many cases had been turned down by the attendance allowance board, which was operating an approach to these cases that was more stringent than Parliament felt was justified, that, after a couple of years' experience, in 1976 Parliament decided to take the matter out of the hands of the attendance allowance board, so that someone who was forced to undergo renal dialysis to sustain life should automatically be awarded attendance allowance. I believe that that is the only case of such an automatic entitlement.
We were, and are, asking the House to consider the extent to which patients who must receive home parenteral nutrition may fall within a similar category. Certainly the treatment is life-sustaining, involves many difficulties, and might be found by many people hard to handle and endure. We were anxious lest the board, albeit for what seemed to it the right reasons, adopted rather high standards of judgment for this condition too, and we therefore sought to raise the issue whether here, too, Parliament should step in and make the disease a qualifying condition for the award of an attendance allowance. We have tabled the amendment because we are worried that individuals are being denied attendance allowance even though, perhaps for psychological reasons, they have great difficulties with the operation of total parenteral nutrition.

Mr. Ernie Ross: On behalf of all those who, like me, have had the benefit of total parenteral nutrition, I should like to thank all hon. Members who participated in the Committee proceedings. I speak on behalf of those who have the misfortune to have to use this treatment for the rest of their lives in order to sustain life and for those who, like me, were on the treatment for a short time.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) spoke in Committee, she mentioned correspondence from Professor Lennard-Jones. During the recess he wrote me a couple of letters, and I should like to quote one paragraph from his letter of 17 December. He said:
Thank you for your courtesy in sending me a transcript of the debate on the Social Security Bill during which Mrs. Beckett made such a strong case for granting an Attendance Allowance to all patients who give themselves parenteral nutrition at home. I am most impressed by the quality of the debate and the reasoned arguments put forward.
Like Professor Lennard-Jones, I was also impressed when I read the debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South said, I had my life saved by this treatment and I should like to share some of my experiences with the Minister and with hon. Members, because it may help us to come to a conclusion on the matter.
In January 1985 I required major abdominal surgery at Ninewells hospital, Dundee. That surgery saved my life. Following surgery I was making reasonable progress, but suddenly, and for no apparent reason, the operation having been a success, I started to find it difficult to feed myself. I was regularly sick and had diarrhoea, for which there seemed to be no cause. At first it was suspected that it was perhaps psychological, given the surgery that 1 had required and the stress that I had gone through. The consultant was of the opinion that perhaps I had lost the ability to eat or to want to eat, or even to want to survive.
I assure hon. Members that I was trying as hard as I could to survive, and many of my hon. Friends, including


my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), came to see me and will recall that I was striving hard at that time but finding it difficult to maintain life. Eventually 1 was taken back into Ninewells hospital, and the staff inserted an endoscope and discovered that I was suffering from post-operative adhesions. They were not just simple post-operative adhesions, but massive ones and the consultant, Professor Cusheri said that they were among the worst postoperative adhesions that he had come across in his many years as a surgeon. Instead of the wounds inside my body healing separately, they were healing together and I was gradually choking myself to death.
There was no way in which I could feed myself by the normal method. The staff tried all sorts of treatments. They inserted internal tubes to try to feed me, but that simply added to the complications and I lost a considerable amount of weight. I was certainly not in any condition for more surgery, which was obviously what was required at that time. I did not have much to look forward to, and I can remember the day when the hospital staff tried the last method of trying to feed me. The stomach that they had created for me became solid with the infusions that I was taking in a very uncomfortable manner through a tube down my nose and throat. I thought that that was virtually the end of it.
4.15 pm
The next morning my stomach was pumped out, and a new consultant was introduced to me. He told me that his name was Chris Pennington and that he was a consultant nutritionist. He said, "Do not worry. We will look after you." I had heard that story once or twice before, and I was not convinced. The staff carefully gathered up my emaciated frame and put it in ambulance and transported me to King's Cross hospital. I then discovered this new treatment of total parenteral nutrition, and, I should like to put on record what it involves, because it is only when one hears what is involved that one appreciates the psychological stress and the problems faced by those who, unlike me, have to live with it for the rest of their lives.
At the start of the treatment, a catheter is introduced through the skin on the anterior chest, or upper abdomen, and it tunnels through the tissues to end in a large vein near the heart. The catheter cannot be seen under one's clothing and patients can engage in normal activities during the day. At night, using strict sterile precautions, and following a protocol to avoid accidents, about 3 litres of fluid, usually in one flexible, transparent plastic container, are infused slowly through the catheter. During sleep the rate of infusion is kept constant by a sophisticated volumetric pump with an audible alarm which wakes the patient when a technical fault occurs.
In the morning the patient reduces the rate of flow of the small amount of fluid remaining to allow the body to readjust to a fall in blood glucose level. The container is then disconnected. A blocking cap is placed on the end of the catheter, anticoagulant is injected and the patient resumes activity. The patient has to learn how to maintain complete sterility during all manipulations involving the catheter or nutrient solution. New skills have to be acquired for handling syringes, infusion lines and the pump and for care of the catheter and the site at which it

enters the skin. Knowledge is needed about potential complications and technique, and about how to avoid or cope with them.
That all sounds fairly straightforward, but I assure hon. Members that when one has to try to deal with something on one's chest while working a machine it becomes a part of one's life. People tend to give their machines names, and my machine was called Fred. The machine has a volumetric pump, which goes tick, tick, tick. If anything happens during infusion, there is an audible alarm. If that alarm goes off, one immediately starts to panic. It is difficult to carry out these procedures on one's own, but my wife was trained while I was in King's Cross hospital and she carried out the hooking up and disconnecting. I should not have liked to do it myself. Certainly I can appreciate the stress and the psychological pressure that patients have to go through. I had to go through the process to ensure that I could undergo a further major operation, but I knew that at some stage I might be able to do away with this type of feeding and return to normal feeding.
I went back into hospital, and was there from 20 April to 11 May. When I was taken into King's Cross hospital my weight was 42·5 kg, which is under 7 stone. Within three weeks the hospital staff managed to get me to a stage at which I could again undergo fairly serious major surgery. From 24 May to 26 June I went back to total parenteral nutrition in King's Cross hospital. Then I had three weeks at home. At the end of that I was able properly to feed myself and to say goodbye to Fred, the sterile gloves and to having to connect myself up at 8 o'clock at night and remain connected to Fred until 8 o'clock the next morning.
The only thing that sustained me was that I knew that I would be using Fred for only a short time, and the consultant kept on assuring me that at some stage I could return to a normal feeding method. We discussed the possibility of my coming back to the House and of St. Mark's hospital in London taking over the regime and providing the nutrition that I required. The lowest point of my illness was when I had to face the idea of having to carry out my normal work and being hooked to a machine for 12 hours a day. That was not something to which I was looking forward. I have never suffered the stress that many of my constituents and many others suffering from diseases who have to use this treatment have suffered, because my wife was with me and she had learnt the sterile method needed to maintain my condition.
The case of Patricia Boyle, which I asked my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Derby, South to raise, is one that I can well understand. Patricia Boyle is a young, intelligent woman, but she cannot cope psychologically with the idea of hooking herself to a machine. I can personally vouch for that being a problem, as it was a difficult part of my treatment. It was only the support from my wife and King's Cross hospital that got me through it.
On the first occasion on which we took the machine home to Twead crescent and I was hooked up, as luck would have it, the giving set—the connection from the bag of fluid through the volumetric machine to the body —did not work. After half an hour of panic, trying to unblock the line and trying various other sets, fortunately we were able to contact King's Cross hospital, which provides a 24-hour service to patients like myself. Some patients who use the total parenteral nutrition method live


up to 500 miles from the centre that looks after their treatment, and they do not have the confidence of being able to gain access to someone who is suitably qualified and trained, as my wife and I could that night. They may not even have access to another giving set. We had a couple of spare sets and we were able to speak to King's Cross hospital. Even after the sister who was in charge that evening had gone home she was able to speak to us on the telephone and talk us through the process to make sure that I was hooked up.
It is difficult, particularly for young and elderly people, to cope with this problem. I hope that the Minister, if he cannot say today that an attendance allowance can be given, will at least give us some assurance that individual cases will be looked at more sympathetically. It appears to me, knowing Patricia Boyle and the Boyle family very well, that the conclusion Dr. Pennington came to — that psychologically she may never be able to come to terms with this form of feeding — is something that the attendance allowance board seems to have ignored completely. It would be sad if it determined that because she is not regularly breaking down, or because someone else is able to assist her, she could not be considered for an attendance allowance.
A number of studies have been carried out on responses to the treatment, and I am sure that the Minister and his Department have studied those. I draw his attention to a study carried out by Belinda-Jane Dewar, a nursing sister, into psychological problems faced by patients who have to rely on mechanical feeding. It is a very useful and informative document. She came to the conclusion that this major advance has
created new psychological stresses for patients and their families. Since the patients' lives depend on TPN apparatus, they must accept the use of this mechanical device in order to survive. They must also adapt to the loss of normal body function and face the reality that they are permanently dependent on TPN as a substitute.
On behalf of all patients who have used TPN, I thank the Committee for taking the time to consider the matter.
I conclude by referring to a comment made by Professor Lennard-Jones in correspondence to me on 24 December last year. He said:
It is thus important when discussing this topic not to regard these patients as healthy people who have to perform a technical exercise each night. On the contrary, they are people with a severe illness who courageously cope with it using this technique and they achieve a very high level of activity and rehabilitation.
I hope that the Minister can give some indication that those patients who have to use total parenteral nutrition from now until the end of their lives can be allowed to resume normal activities and a rehabilitated life. Certainly they would be helped if the Minister could give an indication that the attendance allowance board will look much more sympathetically at this form of treatment.

Mr. Portillo: I welcome the hon. Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) to the debate. I understand that he was the unseen moving force behind some of the debates in Committee, and he has contributed most interestingly today. I studied the amendment very seriously before coming to the debate today.
As to precisely what is and what is not at issue, what is, not at issue is whether somebody who is on total parenteral nutrition can qualify for attendance allowance, because of course they can and many people do. The question before us is whether somebody who is on TPN

should qualify automatically for attendance allowance, for that very reason, without any other consideration of the case. I want the House to be clear that that is what we are considering. To answer the first point, there can he no question that people on TPN may in some circumstances be able to qualify.
On the second point, I will put my cards on the table straight away and say to the hon. Gentleman and hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) that I will not recommend acceptance of the amendment because it represents an unjustified shift in the general policy that entitlement to disablement benefits is based on the effects and needs arising from disability and is not related to specific disabling conditions or forms of treatment. I should like to explain why we have reached that conclusion.
The House will know that attendance allowance is designed to help with the extra costs faced by severely disabled people who need a great deal of care in the form of frequent attention to bodily functions or continuing supervision or watching over them to avoid substantial danger to themselves or others. Entitlement to the allowance is based solely on those attendance criteria and not, apart from one specific exception, on any particular disabling condition or form of treatment.
The exception is those disabled people whose entitlement to the allowance is based on the fact that they are renal dialysis patients who self-dialyse. For many years it has been accepted that all people who dialyse at home have much the same attendance needs, and those needs are sufficient to qualify for a lower rate attendance allowance. Home dialysis patients are awarded the allowance simply because they are receiving the treatment, without any individual assessment of the needs of each patient. Recently we extended the concession to cover people who dialyse in hospital self-care units, and it was possible to treat self-dialysis in this way because the need for attendance is present in every case.
The amendment seeks a similar blanket concession for people receiving total parenteral nutrition treatment at home. We aim to enable disabled people to receive with the minimum of fuss the benefits to which they are clearly entitled. The extension of the special attendance allowance arrangements to renal dialysis patients using self-care units shows that we are prepared to respond positively and sympathetically to the changing needs of disabled people brought about by developments in medicine and new forms of treatment.
Before going down the road proposed by the amendment, we must be certain that all TPN patients have the same attendance needs and that those needs can be accepted as sufficient to satisfy the criteria for attendance allowance without individual assessment. It has been argued forcefully that the attendance needs of all TPN patients are just as great and universal as those of dialysis patients, and should be similarly recognised by automatic entitlement to allowance. We have consulted the attendance allowance board and we do not believe that we could justify extending to TPN patients the kind of blanket entitlement available to dialysis patients. The board is experienced in assessing the attendance needs of TPN patients and has received advice from experts in that Form of treatment.
4.30 pm
I now want to consider one of the problems that so often arise—that of conflicting medical opinion from different sources. It is true that there is a body of medical opinion that holds that all TPN patients need help and assistance with the treatment from another person. Other experts take a markedly different view. To take the extreme, in the opinion of one consultant involved with TPN, to award attendance allowance would negate the whole purpose of the treatment, which is to allow patients to lead completely independent lives to the extent of holding down full-time paid employment. Advice received from another expert is that TPN patients who are otherwise physically and mentally intact do not require attention, supervision or watching over by another person before, during or after the treatment.
I want to draw some comparisons between TPN and renal dialysis. Patients on renal dialysis must without exception keep to a strict timetable and deviation of a few hours may have catastrophic consequences. They are severely ill people with a progressive disease which causes toxic reactions. The preparation of the machine for renal dialysis takes 40 to 60 minutes. That preparation may be physically very arduous. The patient is connected by a very short tube which may be only 12 to 16 in. long. The length of the tube cannot be varied because of the law of hydrodynamics. Moreover, the connection is made via the left wrist and that effectively tethers the patient, making him practically immobile. The connection is of the friction type and it could possibly slip. The treatment causes lassitude, confusion, temperature variations and occasionally even transient heart failure through the lowering of body pressure. Such people are hardly in a state to call for help should a breakdown occur.
The timing of TPN is important, but not critical. A few hours' delay may make the patient thirsty or hungry, but will not endanger life. The preparation of the machine takes five to 10 minutes and consists of running feeding fluids through the tubing. Similarly, the length of the connection is variable from a few inches to yards depending on the pump strength. The connection is not of the bayonet type. It cannot come apart without twisting. The patient is not tethered and is able to turn over in bed and sleep comfortably. It is true that the entire apparatus weighs about 55 lb, but it need not be carried around. When the treatment is finished, TPN patients feel refreshed and often go to work. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Dundee, West would endorse that.
I am not for a moment saying that TPN patients should be excluded from attendance allowance. Undoubtedly some should receive it. I remind the House that the question is whether they should all receive it automatically. We believe that TPN patients are not a homogeneous group, all with the same attendance needs, who can be automatically accepted as satisfying the qualifying criteria.

Mr. Tom Clarke: How many TPN patients are there?

Mr. Portillo: I will come to that in a moment.
The attendance needs of each individual patient are different. Some can cope with the treatment entirely unaided and do not need assistance from another person. Clearly it would be quite wrong to pay attendance allowance in such cases. Others may well need help and assistance, either because of other mental or physical disabilities or because they are psychologically unable to

cope with the treatment. Whether these needs arise and are sufficient to qualify for attendance allowance entirely depends on the facts and circumstances of each individual patient. I think it quite right, therefore, that a TPN patient's entitlement to attendance allowance should continue to be assessed in the light of individual needs by the attendance allowance board taking account of all the physical or mental or psychological difficulties which may be present.
In response to the point raised by the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke), may I say that the attendance allowance board has made it a policy to consider all TPN cases. That matter is not put out to delegated medical practitioners. All the cases—there are not many—are brought forward. Since the beginning of 1987 there have been eight TPN cases and attendance allowance has been awarded in four of them. That is a striking ratio. It means that the board has concluded in some cases that people should be entitled to the allowance.
I cannot comment specifically on the case of Miss Boyle or any other case. However, in response to a point made by the hon. Member for Derby, South in Committee, I can state that if a letter from the attendance allowance board states that it can find no evidence of mental instability, aggressive behaviour or a suicidal tendency, it does not mean that the board is stating that unless such tendencies are present the person does not qualify for attendance allowance.
The attendance allowance board is bound in its deliberations to go through a checklist of everything that might qualify a person for attendance allowance, including, as hon. Members are aware, whether a person is likely to cause himself or herself any harm. That must be considered and covered in the documentation. That is a standard form of words, but it does not mean that a TPN patient is excluded from receiving an attendance allowance or can receive it only if there is evidence of suicidal or other tendencies.
I hope that the House will realise that we have considered this point carefully. However, I regret that I cannot commend the amendment to the House. In the spirit of the contribution made by the hon. Member for Dundee, West, I undertake to draw everything that has been said in this short debate to the attention of the attendance allowance board and I will ask my officials to continue to discuss all the issues that have been raised. I am grateful to the hon. Members for Dundee, West and for Derby, South for giving us the opportunity to consider this matter.

Mrs. Beckett: Although this has been a brief debate, it has been interesting. While all hon. Members will have sympathised with the experiences related by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross), they will have been impressed by the clear and quiet way in which he was able to describe what must have been an horrendous experience. I listened with care to the Minister. I am particularly grateful for his remarks at the end of his observations and I want to make two or three points.
We must bear in mind a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West. By definition, those who undergo TPN treatment are very seriously ill, especially those who are likely to have to undergo the treatment permanently. I recall that in Committee we drew attention to observations made in medical literature to the effect that it is especially those people who have not previously


been seriously ill who are most likely—as was the case with my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West whose illness occurred unexpectedly — to face serious psychological difficulties.
Those who have already suffered a long and chronic illness and may have been in severe pain, which hopefully may have been relieved by the operations that led them to need total parenteral nutrition, may be more accustomed to suffering. They are also receiving an advantage. They are receiving a beneficial side effect to accompany their difficulties. Those people who have been struck comparatively swiftly by a serious illness and then find themselves dependent on the use of this technique to sustain life are bound to have far greater psychological difficulties. In that sense, I accept the Minister's point that obviously the circumstances will vary from case to case.
We also drew attention in Committee to medical literature that revealed the new techniques in this area. The Minister acknowledged that techniques were developing and changing. New techniques are being tested in Toronto, where a self-sealing septum is being tried. That is intended to help women patients, where there is a strong resistance to the effects of surgery, because repeated access to the catheter can be made by needle. The Minister will recall that experience there was that many patients had to reject that form of treatment because of a combination of the pain and the build-up of scar tissue and also—and very importantly—the psychological effects.
I am grateful to the Minister for confirming that, when the attendance allowance hoard said that Patricia Boyle was not displaying evidence of mental instability, aggressive behavour or suicidal tendencies, it was not suggesting that it would be necessary to wait until those conditions were displayed before attendance allowance could be awarded. We did not have such clarification in Committee.
As in the case of renal dialysis, I wonder whether the board is tending to go through what the Minister described as a checklist of tests, which have perhaps arisen from considering people with mental illness or handicap. Is the board giving sufficient weight to the new circumstances and to the technological change which has led to the introduction of this treatment, and is it applying the right tests to its judgment of psychological difficulties? That is an important point which should be considered by the hoard, and perhaps more widely. As experience develops, Parliament might well feel the need to pronounce on this matter, unless the board is able to convince us that it is using the right criteria with the right sensitivity.
I welcome the Minister's comments about the return to the board. I hope that it will consider the observations that have been made, in a spirit not of criticism, but of anxiety in the debate.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2

INTRODUCTION OF RETIREMENT ALLOWANCE AND OTHER PROVISIONS RELATING TO INDUSTRIAL INJURIES BENEFIT

Mr. Portillo: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 3, line 24, leave out
`for the purposes of the Act is treated as having'.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 4 to 7.

Mr. Portillo: In Committee, a question was raised about the meaning of the phrase "treated as having retired", as it appears in clause 2(3). That matter was resolved, but the point was made that the terminology relating to retirement was not consistent throughout clause 2. Having considered the point further, we offer amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 6,' which must be considered with amendment No. 7, under which a new subsection is inserted to clarify the terminology used in the other subsection. These technical amendments aim to standardise the wording used in the clause so that it may be better understood.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4

INCOME SUPPORT AND CHILD BENEFIT

Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 4. line 21, after 'period, insert
'or when engaged in a course of education or training.'
Before I deal with the precise terms of the amendment, it would be helpful to the House if I set it in the context of the clause from which it offers a further exemption. Competition among the clauses in the Bill to see which may be regarded as most objectionable is intense. However, when history makes its judgment on the Bill it will be by clause 4 that it will be best remembered.
For 40 years, supplementary benefit, or the social security system which preceded it, has been available to any person over 16 years. This clause excludes from such benefit anybody under 18, and, remarkably, it does so in the very decade that has seen more unemployment than ever before among those who arc affected by the clause.
In yesterday's debate on child benefit there was a passage of arms about what the Conservative party had meant in its manifesto when it referred to child benefit. The gulf between what it said in its manifesto at the last election and what it is doing in the clause with respect to teenagers is wider than anything that it has said in respect of child benefit. The manifesto stated:
We will take steps to ensure that those under 18 who deliberately choose to remain unemployed are not eligible for benefit.
Perhaps it should have occurred to us why the Government felt it necessary to take those steps. After all, a battery of powers are available to the DHSS to suspend benefit from anybody who it thinks chooses to be unemployed. It is simply not possible to choose to be unemployed and to claim benefit. I suspect, as many hon. Members no doubt do from the evidence of their constituency surgeries, that the powers against those suspected of choosing unemployment are being used far more readily and more easily than before.
Perhaps we should have been suspicious. We would have been correct in our suspicions, because, as the clause shows, the Government are riot suspending benefit froth those under 18 who deliberately choose to remain unemployed, but are suspending benefit from anybody under 18 who is not employed. It is an absolute ban. The proposal is as lonely and friendless as any adolescent whom it will affect.
I noticed, when reading the Official Report of the Committee proceedings, that the Under-Secretary of State and the Minister referred to YTS in glowing terms and appeared to pray in aid the success of YTS as the reason why it was no longer necessary to offer supplementary benefit or income support to 16 and 17-year-olds. This is not the place to debate YTS and I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, would call me to order if I attempted to do so. However, if the Government claim that the success of YTS is the reason why we no longer need to offer income support to 16 and 17-year-olds, they should listen to what is said by the people who administer the YTS scheme and made it the success that the Minister claims.
Everybody associated with YTS has begged the Government not to proceed with the clause. The MSC has persistently emphasised that it regards it as important that YTS is a voluntary scheme, both for the employer and for the young person. The youth training board of the MSC, which administers the YTS, has emphasised its policy that YTS should be voluntary. The Institute of Careers Officers Ltd., which the Under-Secretary of State prayed in aid in Committee, has stressed to the Government that YTS should be voluntary and not a system of conscription.
To all those bodies, it is highly appropriate to the success of YTS that it should be voluntary. The willingness of youngsters to enter the scheme and make a success of their place on the scheme depends on their doing so voluntarily and not being conscripted. All hon. Members who have achieved my exalted years must be familiar with the fact that one can get an adolescent to do something much more successfully when one has persuaded him to believe that he thought of it first and that it was his choice, rather than ordering him to do it.

Miss Marjorie Mowlam: That is also true of Ministers.

Mr. Cook: As my hon. Friend says, that is also true of the Government. I shall endeavour to persuade them that they think that the clause is wrong and should be withdrawn.
If we were to consider the poverty lobby, it would not be possible to find anybody in the voluntary sector, responsible for welfare policy, to support this proposal. I suspect that we would not find anybody employed by the DHSS who would support it either, if people only dared to speak their minds. This measure will cause hardship to young people and, as everybody in the welfare debate knows, will increase household poverty.
There are some spectacular exceptions, such as His Royal Highness Prince Edward, but, by and large, those young people who find it difficult to obtain useful, remunerative work are in households with below average incomes. They are in households where parents are least able to support teenagers, who end up with no income of their own, but it would be inappropriate to develop that point.
It would be inappropriate to do that, because the clause is inappropriate to a Social Security Bill. The motive that has inspired the clause and the measure does not come from a consideration of equity or income support. The motive that inspires this proposal is the Government's policy in the labour market consistently to drive down the wages of young workers by excluding them from the

protection of the wages councils, and by introducing young workers' schemes designed to subsidise poverty wages.
This is merely the latest step in a number of measures taken by the Government to make it more difficult for teenagers to resist any job, however badly paid, however poor a future it may offer and however temporary its nature. Ironically, it is precisely because they have created that labour market that this measure is spectacularly inappropriate to the context of that labour market. They have exposed teenagers to a labour market in which the jobs they obtain are increasingly casual, temporary and seasonal.
The life experience of many teenagers alternates between employment and unemployment. Survey after survey has shown that one in five young people aged under 18 have a chance of being unemployed within the next three months, and that one in eight teenagers are employed in a temporary or part-time job. The lifestyle of that large chunk of the teenage work force alternates between intervals out of work and intervals in work. The clause states that when they are out of work they will receive no benefit, and that while they are in work they will be expected to pay contributions towards unemployment and social security benefits.
The amendment seeks to widen the exemptions and to exclude another group of teenagers from the scope of the clause. In Committee, the Under-Secretary of State read into the record a list of the present, narrow exemptions. I am disappointed that there is no open exemption for 16 and 17-year-olds who are obliged to leave home because of physical abuse or because they are in danger from incest. The only exemption that is conceded in their case is that they will qualify for income support during the period when child benefit would otherwise have been payable to their parents. They will qualify only for the bridging period of three or four months until a YTS place becomes available.
As the Under-Secretary of State will appreciate, the problem with that is that the YTS allowance is not calculated to meet a trainee's housing costs. Many of the voluntary organisations which cater specifically for the needs of teenagers who have left home because they no longer have a place there have no idea how they will function if those teenagers cannot pay their rents because they can no longer obtain benefit.
Other groups of teenagers are exempted, but the exemptions are extremely limited. I was pleased to note that pregnant mothers will be exempt from the scope of the clause and be allowed to claim income support — not indefinitely, but at any rate for longer than the bridging allowance period. That is an important category, because there are 50,000 teenage pregnancies every year. However, on reading the provision for pregnant mothers, I was startled to discover that they will qualify for income support for only the last 11 weeks of pregnancy. For the first six months they will not be entitled to social security. Perhaps the Under-Secretary of State will explain how he expects a 16 or 17-year-old girl who is four or five months pregnant to obtain employment, or, for that matter, to obtain a YTS place and qualify for a YTS allowance. She will have to wait until the sixth month, when eventually she will qualify for income support.
The Under-Secretary of State may wish to rely on the other categories that are exempted. There will be exemptions in cases of—I quote the words from the list


—"exceptional hardship". In Committee the Under-Secretary of State constantly referred to "severe hardship", but the list calls it "exceptional hardship". Normal hardship will not do; severe hardship will not do; it must be exceptional hardship.
That exemption is rather baroque, because the DHSS proposes that every case of exceptional hardship must be referred to DHSS head office. It is extraordinary that in cases where there will be the most urgent need for payment, the papers will he sent by post to DHSS head office, where they will join the long queue in the in tray, and there will be considerable delay before a reply is received from an adjudication officer, who will not have seen the claimant, to whom the claimant cannot make representations, and against whose decision the claimant has no right of appeal.
The amendment seeks to lever open the door to further exemptions. It would extend an automatic exemption to 16 and 17-year-olds who would rather study than join the youth training scheme. When the Prime Minister addressed the House in April, before the general election, she gave the range of options available to young people. She said that young people aged between 16 and 18
can stay on at school, can stay on in further education, can undertake a youth training scheme … or they can do a job."—[Official Report, 23 April 1987; Vol. 114, c. 787.]
The amendment seeks to give expression to the clear wishes and intentions of the Prime Minister, by enabling unemployed 16 and 17-year-olds to make a rational and fair choice between joining the youth training scheme and studying part-time. After all, it is a serious choice for them to make, and there may be many reasons why youngsters will wish to study rather than join the YTS.
More than a quarter of YTS trainees go back into unemployment when their courses finish. That factor will weigh with many 16 and 17-year-olds when considering whether to take up their guaranteed places. Half the YTS places train in skills which, in the words of a report issued by the Department of Employment, are not generally in short supply. By comparison, a 16 or 17-year-old entering a course of education, even on a part-time basis, could obtain a qualification which would enable him to continue into higher education. Under the 21-hour rule, he could obtain two A-levels and thereby qualify for a place in further education for which the youth training scheme would not qualify him.
The reasons why a 16 or 17-year-old might debate whether to join the YTS or go into education are strengthened by the passage of arms in Committee, when the Under-Secretary of State was pressed by Labour Members to guarantee a suitable place for every teenager. He will recall that he could not give such a guarantee. He could give a guarantee only that a place would be available, not that it would he suitable for a 16 or 17-year-old. In those circumstances, it is only fair that that youngster should have the right to say, "No, thank you. I do not want a place that I do not regard as suitable for me. I would rather spend my time studying."
The intent of our amendment may not be immediately obvious from its wording and, with some humility, I should say that I am not 102 per cent. confident that it gives expression to our intentions. The clause refers to income support being available
in prescribed circumstances and for a prescribed period
to 16 and 17-year-olds. If the amendment were accepted, the clause would refer to

prescribed circumstances and for a prescribed period or when engaged in a course of education or training.
The phrase
when engaged in a course of education
is offered as an alternative only to the "prescribed period", not to the "prescribed circumstances". I accept that it would be impracticable to offer income support to every 16 and 17-year-old. If our amendment were carried it would be limited to the 16 and 17-year-olds who came within the "prescribed circumstances" of the clause.
Who would come within those prescribed circumstances? First, I wish to clarify the doubts about what will happen to the 21-hour rule. At present, about 30,000 16 and 17-year-olds are studying part-time under the 21-hour rule, which enables them to maintain a course of part-time study without jeopardising their supplementary benefit. In Committee the Minister of State said that the income support regulations will, in general, continue the 21-hour rule. It is correct to say that the 21-hour rule will remain available to everyone over the age of 18, just as it is available now. But after the Bill becomes law — if the House is unwise enough to put it on the statute book—that part and all other paragraphs of the regulations will no longer apply to those aged under 18.
Will the Under-Secretary clarify how he proposes to give effect to the statement by the Minister that the 21-hour rule will remain available? Will he also give a clear undertaking that 16 and 17-year-olds carrying out a part-time course of study under the 21- hour rule will be in the prescribed categories, and that their benefits will not be threatened when the Bill is enacted?
5 pm
There are, of course, other groups who benefit from the present rules, and who appear to be jeopardised by the clause—for instance, teenagers who are separated from their parents, to whom I referred earlier. At present it is possible for such teenagers to obtain supplementary benefit, even for full-time courses of study. They would, however, appear to lose under the clause, unless it is amended along the lines that we propose. There are also school leavers, who at present do not qualify for the 21-hour rule until three months after leaving school. That is an onerous requirement, meaning that many will miss the start of further education college courses in August and September.
It is important to safeguard the interests of those groups and to preserve their right to enter courses of study rather than youth training schemes. If the clause passes on to the statute book unamended, the only group who will automatically qualify for income support while pursuing a course of study will be refugees studying English. While I welcome the exemption of refugees studying English, I see no reason why teenagers who have left school with no literacy skills and without basic English should be denied the opportunity to acquire those skills, which they will certainly need in the future.
The objective of the amendment is to preserve choice and freedom, to give teenagers the right to choose between education and YTS, and to decide for themselves which is the more suitable. In urging the acceptance of the amendment I do not resile from my objections to the principles of the clause, which I outlined at the beginning. I believe that if 16 and 17-year-olds are old enough to be employed, it is wrong in principle that they should be held to be not old enough to receive the benefits of being


unemployed. I also believe that it is vindictive to visit this further discrimination on teenagers, who have seen their benefit cut 14 times under the present Government.
Unless the amendment is accepted, we shall vote for it in an attempt to soften the effects of the clause, and also to express our contempt for the clause as a whole.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: It is a privilege for me to take part for the first time in this debate. The freedom of the Back Bencher at last allows me to rove over issues other than the energy issues on which the Minister and I used to spend most of our time.
I do not wish to rehearse the arguments put so effectively by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) against clause 4 and in favour of the amendment. However, he rightly began by saying that the clause removed a 40-year-old right. Anyone should be squeamish and uneasy about that principle, even if about nothing else.
The clause removes a right to income support in the form of supplementary benefit which has existed for many years. If it were part and parcel of a comprehensive financial arrangement for 16 to 18-year-olds, we could at least have debated that argument. But the anomalies that already exist, and have existed for a considerable time—and for which we all bear some historic collective responsibility—are in no way altered or removed by the changes that the Government now propose.
There is a host of such anomalies in the provisions for 16 to 18-year-olds. My hon. Friend mentioned some of them: the 21-hour rule, the three-month rule, the 12-hour rule and whether a young person is in full-time education. In communities like mine, hon. Members have been grappling with such matters for some time in their Saturday surgeries.
We admit the need for a fundamental change in financial provision for this age group. However, the Government have removed rights without even attempting to deal with that host of anomalies. They propose to replace income support with YTS and MSC schemes: that will be the simple impact of the clause. It is relevant, therefore, to examine the relationship between financial support and the role played by YTS, the MSC and training allowances in the lives of 16 to 18-year-olds, and in the financial provision for them.
I was interested to read the recent publication by the Manpower Services Commission in Wales entitled "Corporate Plan 1987–1991". I recommend that the Minister obtain a copy, as I shall be asking him about some aspects of it in relation to clause 4. Chapter 2 lays down explicit objectives. Under the heading "Implementing the New Training Initiative", it states:
The aim of NTI Objective 2 is to move towards a position where all young people enter the labour market with a qualification relevant to employment. By 1991 the Commission would like to see the vast majority of young people in Wales entering the work force with recognised and relevant vocational qualification.
It continues—this is relevant to our argument—
To achieve this, there will need to be a comprehensive and coherent provision for all young people under the age of 18 to allow them to choose between continuing in full-time education entering training or a period of work experience combining work-related training and education. The role of YTS and TVEI in achieving this aim will need to be developed in conjunction with other developments.

The key reference is to the MSC's objective —presumably it is also the Government's objective—of a comprehensive and coherent provision for all young people under 18, to allow them to choose between continuing in full-time education and embarking on other forms of training. I should have thought that there was a logical correlation between that and comprehensive and coherent financial provision for such young people to make the choice, rather than financial provision that will distort the choices that they must make.
In my community it will be very difficult for a parent, friend or even Member of Parliament to advise a young person, as I am often asked to do, to engage in full-time education in a technical college. In giving such advice, I would be saying that that young person, and the family who must support him, will receive not a penny in training allowance — not £28, not £35 — or any other form of financial support, other than child benefit of £7, frozen and not uprated.
How can an adviser in a community such as mine, where parents are on very limited incomes, make any recommendation for full-time further technical education? As we know, education authorities are unfortunately not willing to offer grants. Those entering university or other kinds of college can receive grants from the county education authority, but financial support for young people entering technical education courses is very restricted.
The anomalies, and the distortion of market choice in education—let me use the terms that the Minister used —are becoming even more absurd as the MSC becomes more and more involved in technical education. Chunks of Merthyr's technical college are financed by or related to MSC-supported schemes. In the same institution, we have people who are supported by the MSC and who receive training allowances, and others who are not and who receive no allowance. A major financial penalty is now attached to young people choosing between full-time education and training. Choice, however, remains an MSC objective. That is a matter on which we should press the Minister, leaving aside our fundamental objection to the clause.
The anomalies in the present system are not restricted to 16 to 18-year-olds. Our 19-year-olds are in an even worse position. I wrote to the Secretary of State on 19 November about a 19-year-old called Jonathan Guard. I am disappointed not to have received a reply. I am told that such cases have to go to the DHSS, but it seems that we cannot get replies in a reasonable time. He goes to a technical college to undergo full-time education and receives no allowance or grant. Moreover, his mum and dad have lost child benefit. Is it not time that, instead of proposing nasty clauses such as this, we should make comprehensive and coherent training and education provision for 16 to 18-year-olds?
I should like to investigate how money has been allocated. We learn from the MSC's corporate plan for Wales that in 1987–88 £62·5 million was provided for 32,000 YTS places. That figure goes up to £68·7 million for 1988–89 and to £68·9 million for 1989–90. What assumptions have been made about the number of young people who will be driven into YTS? The voluntary arrangement has worked well in my area. I do not want to get involved in arguments about the problems of YTS. Young people are being driven into YTS by the financial


penalties behind the clause. I should like the Minister to give us some detail about the assessments behind the figures that I have given.
5.15 pm
How will the clause affect the numbers of people who enter schemes in the next two financial years? There must he such figures, because the Government have already prepared projected budgets. We want to know how sensible, worthwhile and suitable YTS places will be.
We have recently heard that the Department of Trade and Industry is to become a department of enterprise. In my community, the MSC is the second or third largest employer after Hoover and another company. It has become an industry of its own. Under the proposed arrangement, I assume that it will become an ever bigger "employer", not least because of the element of compulsion behind clause 4. It is tragic that schemes which work, which we have done much to promote and which have offered opportunities to our young people, are to become compulsory. We are to have conscription rather than choice. Even worse, however, the financial provisions and anomalies which remain are as bad as ever. That will militate against the comprehensive development of our young people's talents.

Mr. Robert N. Wareing: Clause 4 is a further example of the punitive regime that the Government want us to impose on young people. They go according to the adage of Lord Young, who maintains that young people who do not take a YTS place would rather lie around in bed all day than seek employment.
The clause applies to people who refuse a YTS place —the Minister made a few exemptions in Committee—and others who are not on a YTS course, for whatever reason. It will not matter whether they have been offered a place. The Government are anxious to sacrifice the free choice of youngsters on the altar of the public sector borrowing requirement.
Of the 92,000 16 and 17-year-olds in Britain who are in receipt of benefit, 30,000 benefit from the regulation which allows them to take part-time education which involves up to 12 or 21 hours a week. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) mentioned such people's ability to take A-levels. For about 25 years, I lectured to mature students and school leavers in further education. On the basis of six hours' study per subject per week, it was possible to take three A-levels. Many students have achieved high grades and gone on to training colleges and universities. I could name students who achieved second-class honours degrees at universities.
That option is now being stopped. The restriction will not apply to 16 and 17-year-olds whose parents have plenty of cash. It will not apply to the children of Ministers who are sent to the large comprehensive schools of Eton, Harrow and Rugby. They can afford that type of education. But it will probably apply to 20,000 or 30,000 young people annually in part-time education.
It is all very well for the Government to say, as they may say, that it is possible for young people to stay on at school until they are 18 and finish their course in that way, but it was the Minister, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo), who, referring to the choice of a YTS course, said:
it is appropriate that careers officers should be guided by the word 'suitable' when choosing a course."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, I December 1987; c. 311.]

I repeat what I said in Committee: careers officers are not in their posts simply to he recruiting sergeants for YTS; they are there to give advice on the basis of the age, ability and aptitude of the young person concerned.
Often careers officers will tell young people in schools that a YTS course will be available to them, but If they were free to give advice on what would best suit an individual youngster, they would be able to add that it might be better to take a course in a college of further education. Many careers officers give that advice in schools, because they realise that many children—some would question whether they are children at 16 and 17 —fall foul of a rigid regime in school and develop better in the freer community of a further education college where they can develop their self-reliance and are not subjected to the same discipline as 10 and 11-year-olds further down the school system.
Now, however, careers officers must take something else into 'account. They must consider whether funds will be made available to those young people if they take a course in a college of further education. Those funds may not be available. The Minister may ask why they do not go to the local education committee. However, we all know how the Government have starved local education authorities of funds to enable them to award discretionary grants to young people taking 0 and A-level and other courses at college.
I cannot say that the Labour Government were all that they should have been because, as a lecturer, I was sending letters to— dare I mention the name, Madam Deputy Speaker — Shirley Williams at the Department of Education and Science, saying that more funds should be made available to enable young people to study. But one thing that that Labour Government did was to allow the introduction of regulations which permitted young people to study in college for up to 21 hours a week, and many benefited thereby.
There is no doubt that this clause, introduced by the Government, is contrary to the stated philosophy of the Conservative party, which is always talking about freedom of choice. Now the Government are saying that there can be no freedom of choice for those youngsters who refuse a YTS course.
In Committee the Minister promised—I think that he gave a hostage to fortune—that every 16 and 17-year-old school leaver next year would he offered a YTS place. We shall see. I very much doubt it. It must be a YTS place which is suited to the individual. I do not believe that that will happen, because many thousands of young people who have been on YTS courses have discovered that the courses have folded up or been so inadequate and unsuitable — and "suitable" was a word used by the Minister — that they have preferred to leave or been forced to do so. What is wrong with a young person deciding between his YTS course and a college course which he feels may be more suitable? There is nothing in our so-called free society that says that an individual must be employed in a particular job, but that is what will happen to 16 and 17-year-olds. They will be compelled to go on a YTS scheme or support will be withdrawn.
It may be argued that the Government will continue to pay child benefit, but many young people who take a college course do so against the wishes of their parents. Sometimes the parents are separated; sometimes there is friction between them. So the young person who is told by the careers officer that he can enlarge his opportunities


and fulfil his potential by taking a college course will now have that possibility jeopardised as a result perhaps not of lack of thought, but certainly lack of appreciation of the position in which many young people find themselves. Ministers ought to ask themselves whether they would be so happy to support this measure if their son or daughter were told that it was a choice between a YTS course and no support whatever.
I support fully what my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston has said. I hope that if this amendment is not carried tonight, it will at least give rise to such a stir among parents and young people that the Government will soon be forced to tell the House that they have had to think again.

Mr. Bill Michie: I begin by reiterating what my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said about our disagreeing with the whole principle of clause 4. As we have no opportunity to debate that, we are doing our best to protect people as much as possible.
Much has been said about ordinary young people who will be severely affected by the proposals in the clause. That is bad enough, but there is another group in respect of which I had the privilege of moving an amendment in Committee. The aim of the amendment was to protect disabled young people who at present are able to enjoy further education — the 16 to 18-year-olds. This was considered necessary, not just by Opposition Members, but by groups which represent the young disabled, by the MSC, by Lord Joseph, as he now is, when he was Secretary of State for Education and Science.
There have been many reports and much information to show why it is necessary that young people who are disabled, either mentally or physically, should have the opportunity for further education, rather than go straight on to YTS. It does not mean that some young disabled people do not automatically go on to YTS schemes—they certainly do—but the young people about whom we are particularly concerned are those who are considered, by others and sometimes by themselves, as not immediately ready at the age of 16 to go on a YTS scheme. Experience shows that some of those who go on such schemes do not necessarily achieve the qualifications or gain the experience that more able young people do, simply because of their disabilities, and so are not given the work experience that they should have. This group of young people therefore need special consideration.
More than once in Committee the Minister gave us certain assurances, to which I shall refer later, because we want to make sure that it goes on record that all people in this category will be able to receive benefit for themselves. No doubt even the MSC is not happy about it, because it is still producing packages for lecturers to deal with disabled people, called "From Coping to Confidence". It is strange that those packages are still being produced when, under clause 4, the young people will be dissuaded, for financial reasons if nothing else, from attending the courses.
5.30 pm
Many young disabled people who go to college have to make a statement that they are mentally disabled, or whatever. I said in Committee that this was done in the offices of the DHSS, but I have since learnt that that is not

so. The young people have to go to their general practitioners, who, with great respect, may not be the best people to decide whether a mentally or physically disabled person needs this certification or statement, as I think it is called, which is an embarrassment to the young people. Many young people will not be prepared to go to their GPs to ask for a certificate so that they may qualify for college.
Parents do not like to admit that the young people are physically or mentally disabled. Colleges are not happy about encouraging the system. Under clause 4, they will have to accept a piece of paper stating that the young person is physically or mentally disabled. Many young people understandably are not prepared to accept that stigma.
One headmaster put it as follows:
Many of our least able young people cannot cope with the demands of Youth Training Schemes and yet would feel insulted and humiliated if they were referred to as disabled. The Warnock Report and 1981 Education Act were significant developments in ensuring that such young people as attended this (special) school were regarded and treated as normal youngsters. Schools like this one have very much supported and developed that concept. The labelling of them as disabled totally undermines the work which we have been carrying out.
The young people themselves have also rejected the labal of severely mentally handicapped. For example, 22 students at Bedford college have written:
We all left school and came to college because we know we were not ready for work, or ready to join a YTS course. We learn a little bit slower than other young people and come to college to spend a year preparing ourselves for adult life and work. We are very annoyed and disgusted to learn that we will have to register as mentally handicapped if we want any benefits. Why should we be penalised when we are improving our education in readiness for work?
The letter ends by saying:
Please will you help us in any way you can to further our case?
In the last year the strict medical test of severe mental handicap has caused grave difficulties and concern. It has meant that in some areas there has been a high drop-out rate. It has caused financial burdens for families and it has affected their pride. I have a letter from North Warwickshire college of technology and art, where all the students who joined the vocational induction course were "statemented" as requiring special education under the Education Act 1981. The tutor writes that the requirement has caused 19 of the 53 students to drop out of the course, that it has caused financial burden to the remaining 34 students and their families, and that it has also been an insult to the family pride.
In Committee the Under-Secretary of State said that he saw no problem and that regulation 11(b) had worked satisfactorily for some years. That is not the view of the National Schizophrenia Fellowship, whose advice worker has written:
This Regulation has not worked well in my opinion. The majority of people who suffer from schizophrenia will not accept that they are mentally ill and often have no insight into the illness, which means of course that they are extremely unlikely to register as mentally disabled. People with mental illness face many obstacles when trying to attend educational courses, and one more 'rule' may well deter them from even applying.
Again in Committee, the Under-Secretary reassured us that not only the severely disabled but the less severely disabled would continue to be able to claim benefit. The severely disabled who are covered by regulation 11(b) are those who are willing to subject themselves to being


labelled or "statemented". Will the Minister say that the regulation he will introduce will keep his promise of allowing the less severely disabled to have benefit?
As we have said, all expert opinion is that these young people are not ready for YTS. That is why they have been persuaded to go on training courses or educational courses, even up to the age of 21, before they go into YTS.
Indeed, a recent report commissioned by the MSC from Social and Community Planning Research shows that even now the YTS schemes providing the so-called "premium places", which include a large number of disabled young people, are under considerable pressure. Already 14 per cent. of people on premium places do not get an opportunity of work experience during their two years on YTS. which is a crucial part of making sure that they are ready for employment. A further 31 per cent. can get work experience only in the second year. The report recommends that consideration should be given to expanding the pre-YTS vocational assessment facilities, yet the effect of clause 4 will be virtually to kill off pre-YTS courses in further education.
It is no wonder that not just the Opposition but all the organisations, including the MSC and educationists, who are trying to help young people in this sphere are worried about the implications of clause 4. The Minister must give us more assurances that these young people will be provided for. I refer not just to the severely handicapped, but to those who are less handicapped. The Minister should ensure that the training places will remain open because there is no point putting money into this, backed by the MSC and by the Education Act, if we are making it almost impossible for disabled young people to go on such courses.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: I cannot help thinking that the amendment is nothing more and nothing less than a smokescreen. It is not significant that it is the only amendment to be moved by the Opposition to clause 4, one of the key clauses in the Bill? Clause 4 relates precisely to 16 and 17-year-olds. The message in the clause is absolutely clear to young people: if they do not go out and get a job, stay at school or college, or get training on YTS, the community will not spend its money supporting them in idleness. [Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order.

Mr. Bill Michie: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot take points of order at the moment.

Mr. Michie: An attendant has just taken out my stepdaughter, who was sitting in the Strangers Gallery listening to the debate. Just because she is young does not mean that she is a hooligan.

Mr. Arnold: Despite what we have just heard from the Strangers Gallery. I believe that we have had the smokescreen amendment to clause 4 precisely because Opposition Members have talked to their constituents during the recess and found that there is widespread support for the concept that young people under 18 who are prepared to be idle should not be supported through the funds that all of us believe should be devoted to various Government services, not least training, hospitals, education, pensions and the like. That is the key.
Let us understand the funds that we are talking about. By not providing those funds to young people who are prepared to be idle, the Government will save £84 million. However, if those youngsters, who would otherwise be sitting around doing nothing, supported by the taxpayer, would go on to YTS schemes and do themselves some good by getting trained for the future, the Government, admittedly through a different Ministry, would be investing—and I use that word advisedly—£144 million of taxpayers' money in the future of those youngsters.
It does not seem intelligent for the Government to spend £84 million of taxpayers' money to subsidise people sitting in idleness, when that money, plus an additional £60 million—a total of £144 million—would be invested in training for the future of those young people. That is precisely what clause 4 is about.
Let us look at the amendment tabled by the Opposition. I noted with interest that the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said that he was somewhat confused about the effect and intent of the amendment. The purpose of the amendment is to extend benefit to young people on courses of education or training. We are talking about 16 and 17-year-olds. First and foremost, we must understand what financial support the community is giving to youngsters in education—one of the two points in the Opposition amendment. The parents of those youngsters are already supported through child benefit and income support for families. If a youngster comes from a broken home and has to fend for himself, he is already supported under the new legislation by the income support system. Either way, the community is already giving resources to youngsters of 16 and 17 who are in education.
What does the amendment propose? The other part of the amendment deals with training. If youngsters go into training, they receive YTS training allowances. I suspect that the amendment, which effectively means little or nothing, is a smokescreen. The key point of clause 4 is that the Government wish to invest in the future of those youngsters, but the Opposition wish to spend money on youngsters who are prepared to sit around.

Mr. Robin Cook: The hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) really must be corrected. Opposition Members tabled an amendment to delete the whole of clause 4, and we would be delighted to move that amendment and to debate it. Unfortunately, it was not called. The hon. Gentleman's whole house of cards was erected to show that we have cold feet in regard to the principle of clause 4. It is patent nonsense, like the rest of his speech.

Miss Marjorie Mowlam: I begin by responding to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold). It is important for the House to realise that some of the frustration shown by the Opposition in the last two days is because hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Gravesham sat in Committee for 16 sittings, hour after hour, and said nothing.

Mr. Frank Cook: It is a pity that he did not do the same here.

Miss Mowlam: I wish that Conservative Members had had the common decency and honesty to make those points in Committee, so that we could have had a proper debate on the Bill and the amendments, But they did not give us that chance.

Mr. Frank Cook: Will my hon. Friend speculate on the wisdom of the old adage that it is better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought an idiot than to open it and prove that without doubt?

Miss Mowlam: It is important to emphasise to the hon. Member for Gravesham—if he is listening — that some of that frustration was shown in the Strangers Gallery. I do not condone it, but it is important for hon. Members to realise from where that frustration comes.
As regional director for Thomas Cook Ltd. the hon. Member for Gravesham can afford holidays. Young people of 16 to 18 will not be able to do so.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Mowlam: I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman did not give way.
Opposition Members realise the frustration that young people feel when Conservative Members say that they lie in bed all day and make no effort to get work or to join a scheme. The 21-hour rule on part-time education means that people can obtain education. That is what Opposition Members are fighting for in the amendment.
I shall not repeat the many arguments that were put so well by my hon. Friends. I shall begin by reinforcing one point that was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) at the beginning of the debate about the dishonesty of the Government at the general election on exactly that issue. During the election the Government said that benefit would be denied to young people between 16 and 18 who refused to join a scheme. The Government are now extending that to all 16 to 18-year-olds. We are just beginning to see what the Government have in store for 16 to 18-year-olds. I am worried that this is an indication of things to come, about which Opposition Members as hon. Members and the electorate have not been warned.
In Committee, I asked the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Portillo) a number of questions that were not answered satisfactorily. I do not bring them back on Report to score political points, but because 16 to 18-year-olds are concerned about what will happen to them later this year. I should be grateful if the Minister could answer my few questions.
First, I should like to quote his words in response to a question on 1 December 1987 in relation to the number of places that will be needed and the number that will be available. The Minister said:
all 16 and 17-year-olds will have available to them reasonable training leading to recognised vocational qualifications or credits towards qualifications." [Official Report, Standing Committee E, 1 December 1987; c. 329.]
Unfortunately, I shall remind the Minister about that for months to come when, in different areas in the country, those places are not available. When we asked the Minister how those extra YTS places would materialise, his first response was that there were 120,000 places around the country and that people would in some miraculous way arrive at those places. When we pressed him further, he said that it was not his job to provide the places; that was for the Secretary of State for Employment.
I then asked the Secretary of State for Employment the same question, and, in exactly the same way as the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security, he began

by saying that those places would miraculously arrive and that they will be there when the Bill is implemented. Opposition Members look forward to both Ministers being true to their words, but in Cleveland, through no fault of careers officers or the local authorities, we are now short of places for the April school leavers of last year. Under the present scheme, after April this year, those young people will be without benefit. They will be left out in the cold. Will the Minister give us an assurance that if, by some unfortunate occurrence, the Government fail to provide sufficient YTS places, a safety net of benefit will be provided without appeal to the Minister on each case about what should be defined as severe hardship?
The second question that I should like the Minister to answer is how managing agents will be persuaded to provide extra places. Managing agents to whom I have spoken—I am sure that the Minister has done the same —are reticent to take on extra people. They are already stretched to capacity. Many of the managing agents will say, "Yes, we will consider extra places, but we will expect additional funding." Therefore, I should like the Minister to say whether there will be additional funding available to managing agents if they are expected to take on additional YTS places.
I should like to reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) who spoke about young people between 16 and 18 who are not defined, under the conditions given by the Minister, as severely disabled. I am not referring to people who are mentally or physically handicapped or mentally ill and who need to live away from home because their parents cannot cope, but who are not so handicapped as to be incapable of finding work and who are entitled to income support under this Bill.
I am concerned about young people who can probably best be described as vulnerable on academic criteria in that they may have been to special schools or been classified as educationally subnormal. Those people may not be registered as disabled, but they will have difficulty finding a YTS place. We would like the Minister to give us some assurance that, if such people make every effort to find a YTS place but are rejected because the managing agents choose people with some qualifications, they will receive help. The bridging loan is not available to them. We have been assured that that will be available once people have been on a course. We would like the Minister to turn his attention to that group of people.
We would also like the Minister to turn his attention to another vulnerable group that will be in existence if the law is implemented; that is, young people who have been on a YTS course and taken their bridging allowance, but have eight weeks to go before their 18th birthday. What managing agent will look at that group of young people because for those eight weeks they could not obtain proper training, even by the Government's own criteria? Will there be an extension of the bridging allowance without the appeal procedure?
I should like to remind the Minister of his words in relation to the appeal procedure, because he was specific on that point:
I told the hon. Lady that in those circumstances, extremely unlikely though they were, the person could apply for the Secretary of State's discretion, so that contingency, too, has been covered." —[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 1 December 1987; c. 326.]


Therefore, it is up to the Secretary of State; and we want an assurance that the Minister will take into account the position of every young person approaching 18 who cannot get on a scheme.
There is a problem with the list of exemptions from income support. For example, I am concerned with those who have been on probation. Some people will be able to obtain extended benefit if they have been naughty and put on probation while another young person who is not in that category will not. For example, April school leavers will be denied benefit in September—if that is the date given— if they are unable to get on a scheme and no bridging loan will be available to them. If they have been on probation, they will be able to obtain income support. The officials sitting in the Box are nodding at that, so I am sure that the Minister will consider that point.
I should like the Minister to consider when the Bill will reach fruition. Will he paint for me the scenario as it will apply to April school leavers? I understand that child benefit is to be extended to 13 weeks, but when that benefit has finished, and if there is no YTS place, will young l6-year-olds have their benefit stopped on the first Monday in September? That would be a recipe for inequality and disaster. A school leaver may find a place on a scheme for a couple of weeks in the summer and will be able to obtain a bridging loan in September, but other young people will not be so lucky.
I remind the Minister of the many times in Committee when he referred to the importance of an individual's right to choose.

Mr. Rowlands: There is no financial choice.

Miss Mowlam: My hon. Friend is right. Under this Government there is choice only if one has money—and I mean a lot of money. There are many people in and out of work who will never experience choice under this Government. People have to buy their education, buy their health and, under this Bill, those under 18 will have no chance to buy their future.

Mr. Simon Burns: I have listened to the debate carefully and to the points raised by Opposition Members. I should like to say, without any wish to antagonise or make cheap party points, that in the final analysis their fears will prove to be unfounded.
The idea behind clause 4 arises partly out of misgivings among members of the public, certainly among my constituents, that it is too easy in certain circumstances to slide straight from education on to supplementary benefit. Of course, no rational person will claim that there are a large number of young people who are workshy or who cannot be bothered to find a job. That is nonsense and it is not true. I think that everyone in the Chamber today would agree with that. However, having said that, the duty of the Government, I am proud to say, is to train young people so that they have a skill and are able to meet the sharp end of the competitive job market.
Clause 4 does not provide only one option, and that should not be forgotten. The clause provides three options for 16 and 17-year-olds. First, it allows young people to remain at school full time; secondly, they can go into full-time employment; thirdly, they can find a YTS place. What is even better is that under this Bill the Government guarantee a YTS place for all young people who choose that option.
The question at the heart of the amendment is that of finances. I believe that the fears of Opposition Members will be unfounded because I do not believe that the current situation will change and make it harder for young people. If young people stay in full-time education, their parents will continue to receive child benefit. If those parents qualify for income support, they will receive it. In the sad and unfortunate situation of the child not living with his or her parents any more due to a problem at home, 16 or 17-year-olds will qualify for income support in their own right.
One has to bear in mind the philosophy behind what the Government are doing for young people. We have to ensure that educational standards for those at school are improved and that technical and vocational education is given to those who will best benefit from it, because then they will be on their way to acquiring skills. Those who choose the youth training scheme will now receive two years of invaluable work training and experience. In my constituency, there is a good record of YTS training.
Marconi is one of the major employers in Chelmsford. It is an excellent employer and takes on a fair number of YTS trainees. It has a record of over 80 per cent. translation from YTS to full-time employment with the company.

Miss Mowlam: If the three options that the hon. Gentleman outlined are so wonderful and the YTS is so excellent, why is it necessary to make it an enforced choice, to make it compulsory? If it is so great, let us leave it open.

6 pm

Mr. Burns: I fail to understand the hon. Lady's point about the YTS being compulsory. It is not. As the hon. Lady said in her intervention, there are three choices.
For the small minority of people who do not want to work and who want just to collect state benefit, a deterrent will be created because they will no longer be able to do so. That is a perfectly reasonable response by the Government for people of that age group. I do not believe that it should be encouraged for anyone of any age group to be workshy and to live off the state. I do not want to go down the road of making wild accusations about large numbers of people being workshy, but when it comes to 16 and 17-year-olds, every encouragement should be given to make sure that they do not just languish on the dole queue.

Mr. Robin Cook: The hon. Gentleman is making one of the more lucid speeches in favour of the clause that I have heard. I am grateful for his insight, that the reason why he believes that the Government should act is to prevent from obtaining benefit those who choose to he unemployed and not to take training. Why is the clause necessary? Why is it not sufficient to rely on the many arrangements that are already available to the DHSS to prevent benefit going precisely to those whom the hon. Gentleman identifies as the problem, those who remain voluntarily unemployed who do not qualify for benefit at present?

Mr. Burns: I think that the hon. Gentleman is forgetting that the Bill deals riot only with that specific situation. It also gives a guaranteed place for 16 and 17-year-olds on YTS if they choose that option.
If the Labour party decides to divide the House on the amendment, I shall wholeheartedly support the


Government because I believe that the clause is relevant to the economic situation. It upgrades, gives statutory confirmation to and improves the work training and experience of those who want to go on YTS. It also makes sure that we minimise the number of people who abuse and will continue to abuse the state benefit system. For those reasons, I shall support my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Lobby.

Mr. John Greenway: Watching the progress of the Bill through Committee has been a useful experience for many hon. Members on both sides of the House who were elected to the House last year. Today we shall reach Third Reading, and we shall look back on the Bill as a most fascinating and interesting experience for us all.
As has often been said by Opposition Members, few speeches were made—

Miss Mowlam: None.

Mr. Greenway: There were some. Few speeches were made by Conservative Members, but that does not mean that we do not take our responsibilities seriously and do not investigate the matters that we are addressing.
A clear difference of philosphy and principle has emerged. It came to a head during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), when there was an unfortunate interruption. One wonders what sort of indoctrination the young people who made that unruly demonstration have been subjected to so that they should consider the opportunity being offered by the Government of a training place leading to qualification to be slave labour.

Ms. Dawn Primarolo: The hon. Gentleman clearly learned nothing during the Committee stage. The frustration that was shown in the Chamber today was the frustration of people who have a direct experience of the results of the Government's policies, unlike Conservative Members, who have not. The frustration was the result of the appalling comments by the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold), who demonstrated a total lack of understanding of the current position. I hope that the hon. Gentleman's speech will not follow that line.

Mr. Greenway: I do not believe that there is any lack of understanding. The understanding is clear. It has been the Government's policy progressively over the past eight years to improve training opportunities for young people on a scale seen in no other country in Europe that has enabled the Government to introduce the clauses.
I remind Opposition Members that the matter was focused upon during the general election campaign last year, and proved widely popular.

Miss Mowlam: The hon. Gentleman cannot have listened either in Committee or in the Chamber. Both my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) and myself have said that the Conservative party was not honest during the election. In the manifesto—if the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) is doubtful, I shall produce it for him—all that the Conservative party said was that those who said that they did not want to go on a YTS course would be denied benefit. The legislation

widens that across the board to all 16 to 18-year-olds. Therefore, the Conservatives did not present—did they dare?—a genuine choice to the electorate.

Mr. Greenway: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made the manifesto pledge and the Government's position abundantly clear in his speech on Second Reading on 2 November, when he said:
We included the proposal in our election manifesto that we would guarantee a place on YTS for every school leaver under the age of 18 not going directly into a job. We said in the manifesto that we would take steps to withdraw entitlement benefit from young people under 18 who chose to remain unemployed."—[Official Report, 2 November 1987; Vol. 121, c. 656.]
That is clear, and it is the thrust behind the clause.
The YTS has received Government support of more than £1 billion per year. Rather than Opposition Members criticising the Government and, as my hon. Friend the member for Gravesham said, through the amendment, trying to put up a smokescreen rather than have a full debate on the clause, I feel that we should congratulate the Government on the policy that they have adopted for training young people.
It does not stop with YTS. My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) referred to the fact that the technical and vocational education initiative has proved to be successful. It has been so successful that it has been referred to in at least 50 per cent. of the letters that I have received from secondary school head teachers and governors who are concerned about the future of the TVEI in the light of the Government's proposals for the new national curriculum.
Many arguments about the clause have been put forward during the debate and in Committee, and I do not want to go over old ground, but there are one or two matters that have not been addressed and to which I should like to refer.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) posed the question about how a parent would feel if his child were offered the choice between YTS or unemployment and no benefit. As a father of three teenage children who are all at a local comprehensive school, I have to say that, if that were the choice for any of my children, I should have no hesitation in ensuring that they went on a YTS course. Let me tell the hon. Gentleman why.
On that course, they would be exposed to a different experience — they would be exposed to the world of work. They would be exposed to the work ethic and to training — and what is wrong with that? Surely it is infinitely preferable to embarking upon a benefit culture and a lifetime of drawing such benefit. Surely it must be right that we give every young person between the ages of 16 and 18 every encouragement. I believe that the intervention we witnessed in the Strangers' Gallery during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham demonstrated that some young people have been so indoctrinated that they would prefer a lifetime of benefit and support.
There are two reasons why it is right, at this time, that the Government should introduce this measure. First, there are now more opportunities for young people to stay on at school. As a parent I would prefer my children to make that choice. Indeed, my eldest son, who is 18, did just that. I feel sure that, increasingly, more parents will believe that the best way forward is for their children to stay on


at school. The rolls at our schools are falling, so much so that the Government have been able to introduce the open enrolment provision in the Education Reform Bill. I hope that the opportunity to stay on at school will be grasped by more and more young people—the availability of benefit should not act as an encouragement to leave school.
Secondly, it is right to introduce this measure because, over the past 18 months, we have witnessed an unprecedented reduction in unemployment and the revival of our economy. The revival in the fortunes of Britain lead me to believe that there will never be a better chance for any Government to say to the young people, "Please, please consider your future and make sure that training represents the way forward for you instead of a lifetime of benefit."
During the election campaign I knocked on the door of a house and a young gentleman, rather scruffily clothed, opened it. He said that he could not support my party because he was out of work and on the dole. I replied, "Come on now. There are plenty of jobs in this area. Why do you not go to work at the bacon factory that has vacancy signs outside?" The young man said that he did not want to work at that factory. That is yet more evidence of the type of indoctrination that we have witnessed tonight.
Unemployment should not be an option for any young person under the age of 18. It need not be and it will not be when the Bill is passed.

Mr. Portillo: We have had an interesting debate. It began with the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) saying that his objective was to preserve choice. I find that rather confusing because that is also our objective.
Other things that the hon. Gentleman said confused me further. He said, for example, that the amendment was intended to lever open slightly further the exemptions contained in the clause. However, his amendment, as drafted, extends entitlement to income support to all people engaged in a course of education and training. That would represent a massive increase in the role of income support; and, for what it is worth, it would cost £1 billion. I became more confused when the hon. Gentleman said that that was not what was intended and that his objective was more limited. I do not intend to nitpick about that.
The hon. Gentleman alternated between talking about part-time and full-time education. That led me to believe that we have not made clear to him what will be available to young people and what the changes will mean. I shall try to concentrate on that in my reply.
I shall try to respond to as many of the points that were made during the debate as I can, but I must tell the hon. Lady the Member for Redcar (Miss Mowlam) that I am not confident that I will be able to answer all her questions. She came at me like a good-humoured Gatling gun, with a whole series of questions. If I leave any of them unanswered, I shall certainly pursue them with her on another occasion.
A number of my hon. Friends have already made it clear that three options are available to young people: work, education and YTS. The only option that will be denied as a result of the clause is the dead-end option of unemployment. To be specific, the only option that is denied is unemployment, with the state picking up the tab.

We are offering young people YTS. The places on such schemes are available and valuable and the training organisations are of high quality.
6.15 pm
From 1 April 1988 anyone who is offering a YTS place must be an approved training organisation. That status will be awarded to organisations only after searching inquiries about the competence of the relevant staff, the quality of the training, their financial standing, their commitment to health and safety and the educational opportunities available. Furthermore, training standards will be enforced by the training standards advisory service, which will periodically inspect all YTS placements.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) repeated a question that had been asked in Committee about the suitability of YTS places. It is not our intention to force a young person on to a scheme that is unsuitable. The guidance given to careers officers by the Department of Employment categorically states that a suitable place is one that accords with the career plans agreed between a young person and the careers office or which enhances the job prospects of the young person. There can be no doubt that YTS enhances job prospects and it appears to be the first choice for many young people. It is apparent that 60 per cent. of those on YTS go into a job straight after it. We expect that percentage to increase in the years ahead.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) wanted to know what the increase in the numbers of YTS would be. I must emphasise to the hon. Gentleman that what is on offer is entirely voluntary and that young people can choose between education, a job —if one is available to them— and YTS. It is not easy for us to estimate how many more people will take up YTS.
One probable result of the clause will be that more people will stay on in education. It is also probable that more people will go into jobs — YTS is not the only option. We estimate that, in Great Britain—I apologise to the hon. Gentleman, but I do not have the Welsh figures — up to 30,000 additional young people will join YTS for a full year as a result of the benefit changes. In addition, we expect that most of the 50,000 trainees who currently leave YTS early to become unemployed will stay on to complete their courses. I hope that that information helps the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about costs, but I am cautious about telling him about them because we do not know what the additional demand will be. At the moment we anticipate that we will spend more on YTS than we will save on benefit. Therefore, this is not a cost-saving measure.

Mr. Rowlands: I have pressed for a detailed estimate because in communities such as mine and some of those represented by Conservative Members there is an already heavy dependence upon the MSC and YTS. In the communities that I represent there will be no choice between taking a job and YTS. Those communities already depend on YTS, and further dependence may lead to a diminution in the value and character of those schemes. That is why numbers are so important.

Mr. Portillo: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured by our guarantee of the quality of such placements as a result of the new ATO status that will


affect all bodies after April. I hope that he will agree that it is better for youngsters to be dependent upon YTS than on benefit. That is the basic proposition that we are offering to the House today.
The hon. Member for Livingston wanted to know why teenagers who are estranged from their family, possibly because they have been battered at home or are at risk of abuse, should not live permanently on income support. I do not see why they should. If they are establishing themselves independently away from home, I do not see why, once they have been given the chance to find a job or once they make a decision to stay in education or to take a place on YTS—in other words, once they have been given the period of months which we call the child benefit extension period — they should not be as self-supporting as any other independent person.
Indeed, it is financially to their advantage to accept a place on YTS because it will offer them £28·50 a week in the first year and £35 in the second year. If that is not enough for them to live on because, for example, they are supporting a whole household or have children and the demands of their family take them above the income support level, they qualify for income support over and above their training allowance. If they have housing needs, they qualify for housing benefit. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Gentleman on that because perhaps we did not explain it previously as fully as we might have done.
Equally, the hon. Gentleman asked about pregnant girls training up to 11 weeks before the anticipated date of confinement. I do not see why there should be any distinction between what we can expect of somebody in training and what we can expect of somebody in work. It is typical for women to work up to 11 weeks before the date of confinement, but if they are suffering exceptional sickness and it is certified by a doctor, that would qualify them.
Perhaps I can now answer a question asked by the hon. Member for Redcar about young people who are on bail or probation or under social work supervision being treated more favourably. That is not right. I ask her to recognise that because somebody is on bail or probation or under social work supervision it does not mean that he is guilty. It does not bear that inference. Such people are required to be away from home and provision must be made for them until the end of the child benefit extension period. In that sense they are in a similar position to others for whom we are providing income support during that extension period—for example, those who need to live apart from their parents.
Obviously education has been a crucial matter in the debate, because the amendment invites us to consider it. Some speeches displayed considerable confusion. Those who are continuing in full-time non-advanced further education—"further" simply meaning beyond the age of 16—will be able to qualify for income support broadly in the following three categories. First, if they are in an income support household, their parents will be compensated at the appropriate rate for a youngster over the age of 16, which is £19·40 under income support and the same as the youngster would receive if living independently.
The second category is those who are estranged from their parents for good reason. If those people choose to

stay in education, either at school to do their A-levels or at university, just because they are living apart from their families and have no other means, it does not mean that we shall deny them income support. They qualify for it if they continue in further education. The choice that we are offering is a real one.
The third most general category—I do not want to go into all the details — is the severely disabled. In Committee I was at pains to say that I viewed these people in two categories, although this is a seamless robe. It is not merely those people who are so disabled that they can never get work; it is also those who are disabled and have no prospect of getting work within 12 months. My hon. Friends the Members for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) and for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) obviously understood that better than some others.
Income support is available for the severely disabled. Others who are not severely disabled but who are receiving benefit under the 21-hour rule are by that fact registered as available for and seeking work. If they are capable of work, they are also capable of receiving training under YTS. There are special facilities under YTS available to provide a more sheltered training environment for those people with special educational needs.
At one point the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie) said that the present regulations were not working, but he, together with the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, is talking about a general dissatisfaction with the educational support system. That takes us well beyond this clause. We are making some changes here to income support and those changes will not affect people who continue to be in full-time education. The clause affects the 21-hour rule, which will not be available to people who are 16 and 17.
To put it more accurately, income support will not be generally available to 16 and 17-year-olds because we are providing them with other facilities. If they choose to stay in full-time education, they will be supported if they are in the categories that I listed; if they want to study under the old 21-hour rule, they will be saying that they are available, and if they are available they are also available for YTS. YTS is serious, valuable experience, helping a person to find his or her way in the world and to get a job.

Mr. Michie: Is the Minister giving an assurance that not just the severely handicapped, mentally or otherwise, but those who are less handicapped will have the same opportunities for income support under clause 4? Is that true or false?

Mr. Portillo: If a person is severely disabled—that is, if he is unable to work or is unlikely to find work within 12 months—he will be eligible for income support. If he is at present declaring himself available for work and studying under the 21-hour rule, because he is available for work he is also available for YTS. If his condition presents particular problems for him under YTS, YTS provides a special sheltered environment for him. I do not think that I can help the hon. Gentleman further on that.
The hon. Member for Livingston made an extraordinary statement when he described this as a friendless measure. He wanted me to cite an organisation in favour of these proposals, and I happily do so — the general public. The matter was put to the electorate. I fear that Opposition Members know that there is widespread support for this. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale


(Mr. Greenway) spoke clearly and forcefully on this. The general public are genuinely worried for unemployed young people, and that is why they demand that the Government offer those young people something better. We are doing that. We are offering young people a job, YTS or full-time education. Only one option is being abolished, and that is unemployment at the taxpayers' expense.

Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister concluded by saying that he had consulted the British public and that it had voted for this clause. With the greatest respect, the British public did not vote for any such thing. The British public, in so far as it has been construed to have voted for this Government, voted for a manifesto which said that the Government would take steps to ensure that those under 18 who deliberately chose to remain unemployed would not be eligible for benefit. In its wisdom or otherwise, the country voted for that.
But that is not what clause 4 achieves. It removes the right to benefit of all 16 and 17-year-olds, whether or not they choose unemployment and whether or not they have been offered a place on YTS. The clause will remove the right to benefit for many 17-year-olds who may well have chosen the option described by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns), of obtaining a job on leaving school and holding it for a year or a year and a half, only to find themselves redundant, without choosing to be made redundant or wishing to be unemployed. Under this clause they are not entitled to a penny in income support or unemployment benefit. With respect to the Minister, that is not the proposition that his party offered the British electorate in June.
I found the debate entertaining, if only for the gloss put on this point by the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway), who explained that there was no deception in the manifesto commitment, because the Secretary of State for Employment had clearly explained what it meant in a debate in the House in November, five months after polling day. That is a new gloss on electoral commitments that I shall treasure for the future.
6.30 pm
The debate has also been interesting for one omission that I want to draw to the attention of hon. Members on both sides. We have been debating this important clause—possibly the most important in the Bill—for nearly two hours with no intervention from the Liberal or Social Democratic parties—indeed, without being favoured with the presence of a single representative of either party. That is to be regretted; I was hoping that the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) would be present and would take part. I can understand why he may feel a certain diffidence about being here today, because yesterday he made a speech in the House in support of my new clause to index child benefit in which he said:
I maintain that we must retain the true value of child benefit."—[Official Report, 12 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 195.]
He then woke up this morning and read in the newspaper that, on the same day, his leader had committed himself to a 6,000-word document that included a commitment to means-test child benefit.
I consulted last night's Division list and I regret to say that the leader of the Liberal party was not present to vote; if he had been, he would no doubt have voted with the rest of the members of his party in favour of indexing child

benefit before means-testing it. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Southport does not feel able to show his face tonight, but I can understand his diffidence. In his absence, the rest of us must make up our minds as best we can on the principle of the measure.
The Minister's concluding remarks confirm me in my view that we are right to oppose the principle of clause 4. In my opening speech, one of the most important points, on which I elaborated and for which I pressed, was what would happen to the 21-hour rule. I congratulate the Under-Secretary on being honest about this: it goes out of the window with the clause's inclusion. If the clause is passed, it will not longer be possible for 16 or 17-year-olds to study part-time while in receipt of income support. They will not be able to try to take two A-levels—or, if they are fortunate enough to find themselves in the tutorials of my hon. Friend the Member Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), three A-levels—within the 21 hours, thereby obtaining qualifications for further education. That is an important right and choice that is available to our teenagers. For that reason alone, I would be willing to vote for the amendment.
I do not want to leave the hon. Member for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) in any doubt about what I shall be voting for in the Lobby. He said that we did not have the courage to oppose the clause as a whole. We have. We tabled an amendment to delete the clause in its entirety. We wish that we had had the opportunity to debate that, or to debate clause stand part on Report.
As the debate has proved, the reason why the Government and their Back Benchers are proposing the clause is that it forms part of their general strategy of blaming the victim for his unemployment. That is what we have heard in speech after speech tonight. The hon. Member for Ryedale said that the unemployed choose not to be in work; they are unemployed because they turn down jobs at the bacon factory. I must tell the hon. Members for Ryedale and for Gravesham that in Merthyr, Liverpool, Teesside and West Lothian, tens of thousands of people are unemployed, not because they choose not to wander down to the bacon factory and take the vacancies, but because they cannot find jobs. Therefore, to claw away their benefit is to victimise the victims.
That is why we shall vote for the amendment. I assure the hon. Member for Gravesham that, although I do not, because of the procedure of the House, have the opportunity to vote against the clause in its entirety, I shall vote for the amendment with the full venom that I feel for the clause and the full vigour with which I reject its principle; and I invite my hon. Friends to do the same.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 209, Noes 266.

Division No. 132]
[6.35 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Beggs, Roy


Alton, David
Bell, Stuart


Anderson, Donald
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Bermingham, Gerald


Ashdown, Paddy
Bidwell, Sydney


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Blair, Tony


Ashton, Joe
Blunkett, David


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Boateng, Paul


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Boyes, Roland


Barron, Kevin
Bradley, Keith


Battle, John
Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)


Beckett, Margaret
Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)






Buchan, Norman
Lambie, David


Buckley, George
Lamond, James


Caborn, Richard
Leadbitter, Ted


Callaghan, Jim
Leighton, Ron


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Lewis, Terry


Canavan, Dennis
Litherland, Robert


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Livingstone, Ken


Clay, Bob
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clelland, David
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McAllion, John


Cohen, Harry
McAvoy, Tom


Coleman, Donald
McCartney, Ian


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Macdonald, Calum


Corbett, Robin
McFall, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
McGrady, E. K.


Cousins, Jim
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Crowther, Stan
McKelvey, William


Cryer, Bob
McLeish, Henry


Cummings, J.
McTaggart, Bob


Cunliffe, Lawrence
McWilliam, John


Cunningham, Dr John
Madden, Max


Dalyell, Tam
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Darling, Alastair
Mallon, Seamus


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Marek, Dr John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Dewar, Donald
Martin, Michael (Springburn)


Dixon, Don
Martlew, Eric


Dobson, Frank
Maxton, John


Doran, Frank
Meacher, Michael


Douglas, Dick
Meale, Alan


Dunnachie, James
Michael, Alun


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Eastham, Ken
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fearn, Ronald
Morgan, Rhodri


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Morley, Elliott


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)


Fisher, Mark
Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)


Flannery, Martin
Mowlam, Mrs Marjorie


Flynn, Paul
Mullin, Chris


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Murphy, Paul


Fraser, John
Nellist, Dave


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Galbraith, Samuel
O'Brien, William


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
O'Neill, Martin


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


George, Bruce
Patchett, Terry


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Pendry, Tom


Golding, Mrs Llin
Pike, Peter


Gordon, Ms Mildred
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Prescott, John


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Grocott, Bruce
Radice, Giles


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Randall, Stuart


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Heffer, Eric S.
Reid, John


Hinchliffe, David
Richardson, Ms Jo


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Robertson, George


Holland, Stuart
Robinson, Geoffrey


Home Robertson, John
Rogers, Allan


Hood, James
Rooker, Jeff


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Hoyle, Doug
Rowlands, Ted


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Salmond, Alex


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Illsley, Eric
Short, Clare


Ingram, Adam
Skinner, Dennis


Janner, Greville
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


John, Brynmor
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Snape, Peter


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Soley, Clive





Spearing, Nigel
Wigley, Dafydd


Steinberg, Gerald
Williams, Rt Hon A. J.


Stott, Roger
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Strang, Gavin
Wilson, Brian


Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Winnick, David


Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Thomas, Dafydd Elis
Worthington, Anthony


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Wray, James


Turner, Dennis
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Vaz, Keith



Wall, Pat
Tellers for the Ayes:


Walley, Ms Joan
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Warden, Gareth (Gower)
Mr. Frank Cook.


Wareing, Robert N.



NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Allason, Rupert
Evennett, David


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Favell, Tony


Amess, David
Fookes, Miss Janet


Arbuthnot, James
Forman, Nigel


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Forth, Eric


Atkins, Robert
Fox, Sir Marcus


Atkinson, David
Gale, Roger


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Gardiner, George


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Baldry, Tony
Gill, Christopher


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Batiste, Spencer
Glyn, Dr Alan


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bellingham, Henry
Goodlad, Alastair


Bendall, Vivian
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gow, Ian


Benyon, W.
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bevan, David Gilroy
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Body, Sir Richard
Gregory, Conal


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bottomley, Peter
Grist, Ian


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Ground, Patrick


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Grylls, Michael


Bowis, John
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hampson, Dr Keith


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hannam,John


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Brazier, Julian
Harris, David


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hawkins, Christopher


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Browne, John (Winchester)
Heddle, John


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Budgen, Nicholas
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Burns, Simon
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Burt, Alistair
Holt, Richard


Butcher, John
Hordern, Sir Peter


Butterfill, John
Howard, Michael


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Carrington, Matthew
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Carttiss, Michael
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Cash, William
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Chapman, Sydney
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Churchill, Mr
Irvine, Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Jack, Michael


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Janman, Timothy


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jessel, Toby


Cormack, Patrick
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Couchman, James
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Cran, James
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Key, Robert


Curry, David
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Day, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Dicks, Terry
Knapman, Roger


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knowles, Michael


Durant, Tony
Knox, David






Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lang, Ian
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Latham, Michael
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Lawrence, Ivan
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rost, Peter


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rowe, Andrew


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Ryder, Richard


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lilley, Peter
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Scott, Nicholas


Lord, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Sims, Roger


Maclean, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McLoughlin, Patrick
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Soames, Hon Nicholas


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Speed, Keith


Madel, David
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Major, Rt Hon John
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Malins, Humfrey
Squire, Robin


Maples, John
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marland, Paul
Steen, Anthony


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Stern, Michael


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Stevens, Lewis


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Maude, Hon Francis
Sumberg, David


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Summerson, Hugo


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mellor, David
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Miller, Hal
Thurnham, Peter


Mills, Iain
Tracey, Richard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tredinnick, David


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Trippier, David


Moate, Roger
Trotter, Neville


Monro, Sir Hector
Twinn, Dr Ian


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Moore, Rt Hon John
Viggers, Peter


Morrison, Sir Charles (Devizes)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Moss, Malcolm
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Moynihan, Hon C.
Waldegrave, Hon William


Mudd, David
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Neale, Gerrard
Waller, Gary


Nelson, Anthony
Ward, John


Neubert, Michael
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Warren, Kenneth


Nicholls, Patrick
Watts, John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wells, Bowen


Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Wheeler, John


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Whitney, Ray


Oppenheim, Phillip
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Page, Richard
Wiggin, Jerry


Paice, James
Wilkinson, John


Patnick, Irvine
Wilshire, David


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Winterton, Nicholas


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wolfson, Mark


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wood, Timothy


Portillo, Michael
Woodcock, Mike


Powell, William (Corby)
Yeo, Tim


Raffan, Keith
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy



Redwood, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Rhodes James, Robert
Mr. David Lightbown and


Riddick, Graham
Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Portillo: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 4, leave out line 34 and insert
'subsection (4A) above is to apply to the person to whom the direction relates'.

With this amendment it may be for the convenience of the House to discuss amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 38.

Mr. Speaker: So be it.

Mr. Portillo: Amendments Nos. 11, 12 and 13 have been framed by the Government mainly in order to clarify intentions relating to the power, in certain circumstances, to recover income support paid to a 16 or 17-year-old as a result of the Secretary of State's direction regarding severe hardship, and to clarify also the respective functions of the Secretary of State and the adjudication officer regarding such matters. Amendment No. 11 corrects a drafting error.
Amendment No. 12, which amplifies the existing subsection (4E), is designed to make it clear that recovery under section 20 of the Social Security Act 1986 should be broadly in line with recovery under section 53 of that Act.
Amendment No. 13 is designed to clarify the different functions of the Secretary of State who revokes his direction in relation to entitlement to income support on account of severe hardship, and the adjudication officer's role in deciding that an overpayment is recoverable.
Amendment No. 38 amends section 53 of the Act to make it clear that in such cases recovery of income support under that section applies only to parts of section 53 that are relevant.
Amendment agreed to.
Amendments made: No. 12, in page 5, line 18, at end insert
'(4EA) Section 53(2) and (5) to (9) below apply to income support recoverable under subsection (4E) above as they apply to income support recoverable under section 53(1) below.
(4EB) The other provisions of section 53 below do not apply to income support recoverable under subsection (4E) above.'.
No. 13, in page 5, leave out lines 28 to 37 and insert—
'(4G) Where a direction under this section is revoked, the Secretary of State may certify whether there has been misrepresentation of a material fact or failure to disclose a material fact.
(4GA) If he certifies that there has been such misrepresentation or failure to disclose, he may also certify—

(a) who made the misrepresentation or failed to make the disclosure; and
(b) whether or not a payment of income support has been made in consequence of the misrepresentation or failure.

(4GB) If he certifies that a payment has been made, he may certify the period during which income support would riot have been paid but for the misrepresentation or failure to disclose.
(4GC) A certificate under this section shall be conclusive for the purposes of this section as to any matter certified.'

Clause 5

CONTRIBUTION CONDITIONS FOR SHORT-TERM BENEFITS

Mrs. Beckett: I beg to move amendment No. 15, in page 6, line 27, at end insert—
'(2A) For the purpose of determining entitlement to unemployment benefit, contributions credited in the last two years before the beginning of the relevant benefit year by virtue of the receipt of invalid care allowance shall be treated as if they had been paid.'
Clause 5 tightens the conditions entitling someone to draw unemployment benefit should he be unfortunate enough to lose his unemployment. In that context, the


amendment draws attention to the position of carers. Most hon. Members will know that in recent months the Government have given themselves their usual generous meed of self-praise for their generosity in accepting the ruling of the European Court and extending the entitlement of invalid care allowance. Opposition Members welcome that. We are only sorry that the Government did not feel able to do it earlier than they were compelled to. Let us give credit where credit is due: the Government gave entitlement to the invalid care allowance.
The Minister will be aware, and hon. Members may have become aware in recent months, that for many who are entitled to invalid care allowance there is little financial difference if the person for whom they are caring is already drawing a dependant's addition to an invalidity benefit on their behalf. Groups such as the National Council for Carers and their Elderly Dependants have emphasised that it is still beneficial for married women who have become entitled to invalid care allowances, to which they were not entitled in the past, to claim that allowance because it gives them an entitlement to credits towards their national insurance contributions and a further entitlement to benefits as of right. It is partly a matter of independence, and therefore it is to be commended on those grounds, even to those who did not derive any financial benefit from the award of the invalid care allowance, although some did derive financial benefit.
At the time the addition was made, when the Government were telling us how good they were being, I doubt whether many people realised that within a short period the Government would tighten the conditions for contributions that would entitle people to unemployment and sickness benefits in a way that would particularly hit carers. The national council has drawn attention to its concern about this and has pointed out that when a dependent person dies carers are in a particularly vulnerable state. It is exactly at that time that they are likely most to need their entitlement to unemployment or sickness benefit, when they are struggling to cope with what is bound to be a substantial readjustment to their lives, because invalid care allowances are paid only to people who are fully committed to caring. The association says:
such a move would be entirely opposed to the Government's expressed commitment to recognising the needs of informal carers and to supporting them. We see it as a most retrograde step.
The example has been given of someone who might have looked after an elderly and severely disabled relative, perhaps for 10 years, and by the time the relative dies the carer is in her middle years, in her forties or fifties, and is not likely to find it easy to get a job straight away, even if she wished to do so. Under the Bill such a person will be refused the right of unemployment benefit because she will not have been able to work over the past few years and will have not paid, rather than been credited with, contributions.
This is unfortunate because, quite apart from contradicting many of the things that the Government have said about carers and their commitment to them, it contradicts the origin of the award of invalid care allowance. The "Law of Social Security", the 1982 edition, refers to the way in which invalid care allowance should

be paid, and to its origin. It points out that a household in which someone who is severely disabled needs attention may suffer financial hardship, not only because of the needs of the invalid, but because of the sacrifices made by other members of the household to look after the invalid. A study carried out by Sainsbury in 1970 showed that two thirds of disabled people needing care received it from a relative, and this very often interfered with the relative's earning capacity.
Apart from the fact that it is socially just to compensate people who are prepared to take that step, it makes a good deal of economic sense. If a person is able to live in the community, cared for by a relative, the state saves a substantial amount of money. If such a person needs hospital care, or must go into a home, the cost to the community is considerable. It was estimated that 11,500 people were in receipt of supplementary benefit mainly because they had left employment to care for an elderly or disabled relative.
The issue about which the Government were so pleased with themselves—the award of invalid care allowance to married women — confirms that, although we might deplore the discrimination involved in the assumption, it was intended for people who had given up paid work to become unpaid carers. The crude assumption made in excluding married women from the benefit, which was introduced basically for reasons of economy, was that married women tended not to be in the employment market. I hope that all hon. Members will deplore such reasoning today, but it confirms that the basis of the invalid care allowance is to compensate or assist people who have given up paid work to do something of great value to society and to those for whom they care.
In Committee, the Under-Secretary said:
Of course it is recognised that people have left paid employment to care for a relative or friend. That is why they receive invalid care allowance in the first place. It is an income maintenance benefit that is paid specifically and precisely because it is recognised that people are giving up employment to perform this valuable task."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 3 December 1987; c. 412.]
In order to qualify for invalid care allowance the person must not only spend at least 35 hours a week as a carer, but must not be gainfully employed. There is a tough earnings rule to supplement that. One can earn only 12 a week while receiving invalid care allowance, and that limit has been unchanged since 1982. It is clear that invalid care allowance is designed for people who give up paid work to undertake the unpaid but very demanding task of caring for someone who is severely disabled. They are not allowed even to continue in part-time employment to maintain their toehold in the employment market. By definition, they are full-time carers.
The Government are now saying, in particular to women — because as carers women are the greatest number affected by the clause—who may have worked full time throughout their adult lives, first in paid employment and then in unpaid employment as carers, that they cannot claim unemployment benefit because their contributions record shows that they are not really in the labour market. That is insulting and is totally unrelated to the position. Not only is a carer working, but, by the Minister's definition, a carer who is claiming invalid care allowance is working full time in the role of caring. It is hard to think of another occupation in which one must work full time to qualify for unemployment benefit.
The proposed amendment is not a concession to carers. It is simply an act of justice and logic. I compare the position of two carers, one who is part time and paid, and the other who is full time and receiving only invalid care allowance. They could be doing identical work, apart from the hours involved, but if their work as carers comes to an end and they have to look for other work, the paid carer, who is not working full time in the occupation, may be able to claim unemployment benefit. The unpaid carer, whose contribution to society and the person for whom she is caring is substantially more, may not be entitled, if the Bill goes through, to unemployment or sickness benefit. We are addressing ourselves particularly to unemployment benefit in the amendment, because we believe that that is the more unjust of the two deprivations, precisely because of the relationship between invalid care allowance and paid work.
We asked the Minister about the numbers who would be affected. As I recall, he suggested that about 20,000 people now lose invalid care allowance entitlement each year, and approximately 11,000 of them might be able to claim unemployment benefit. That suggests that vast sums of money are not involved. However, a very important principle is involved and it is a principle which, in other circumstances, the Government have upheld.

7 pm

Mrs. Audrey Wise: I want briefly to reinforce the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) on the fact that these people—mainly women—are actually working and making a contribution to the economy.
In Committee on 3 December 1987 the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security referred to caring as a "valuable task" at column 412. The House should focus on the word "valuable". The task performed by the carer is valuable for the person being cared for, but it is also a direct contribution to the economy. The carer is contributing to the economy just as much as someone in paid employment because, if she did not undertake caring, the person for whom she was caring would become a cost to the state.
It has been calculated, quite conservatively, that the value to the economy of the carers amounts to about £6 billion per annum. That is the contribution that carers are making to all of us and to the taxpayer. However, they are now to be deprived of a very small benefit entitlement—not a concession, an entitlement—that the Opposition never felt would be a matter for party division.
It is deplorable, foolish and short-sighted of the Government to take this attitude. Carers perform a valuable service and they are paying a heavy cost. When they are able to re-enter the labour market, usually when they are bereaved and not at their best, they at present have a small cushion because they can claim unemployment benefit. They often find it difficult to obtain work precisely because they have been out of the paid employment market for a number of years. They have not been divorced from the economy; they simply have not been receiving wages for the work that they have carried out. They have suffered while their peers possibly have received promotion, added to their experience and so provided themselves with fresh skills to attract potential employers if they need to change jobs. The carer has fallen behind in that competition.
However, in the face of that, the Government are seeking now, when they tell us daily that the economy is in splendid shape, to tell carers, "Never mind the fact that you have made this valuable contribution and are a valuable part of our social fabric. We will strip you of this entitlement." When we asked Committee what a carer should do if that happened, the Minister said that if a carer were entitled, he or she could claim income support. The Government are driving carers back to a means-tested benefit, thus taking away from them money and, as many carers would believe, their dignity as people who have made a solid economic contribution to the country.
I have given up hoping that the Government will step back from these deplorable steps, but I hope that we will receive the maximum possible support for the amendment. The amendment provides no improvement for people; it simply seeks to maintain the status quo against those who wish to deprive carers of the potential entitlement of claiming unemployment benefit when they are again able to seek work, if that day ever comes. I commend the amendment to the House and hope that hon. Members will vote for it.

Mr. Portillo: I want to begin by addressing a point made by the hon. Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) at the end of her remarks. The hon. Lady made a point about the dignity, or indignity, of claiming benefits, and she made the same point in Committee. I do not know why she appears to be pushing the idea that it is not dignified to claim benefits to which one is entitled. I thought that that was a proposition that she occasionally accused Conservative Members of peddling. Of course, it is not true to say that we peddle that proposition. For her to say that there is any stigma or indignity for people without other resources to claim state benefits to which they are entitled is an extraordinary assertion.

Mrs. Wise: The indignity lies in the fact that there is an encroachment on the privacy of the person concerned. There is no indignity in making the claim, but people who claim supplementary benefit — or income support, as it will be—feel in a different position vis-a-vis the state. They are compelled to show their total financial position, and they see that as an indignity. They want a benefit that operates as if they had continued to make contributions. That is a simple matter.

Mr. Portillo: Very well; we agree that there is no indignity as such in applying for those benefits. We also agree that people who cease to qualify for invalid care allowance will be entitled to income support if they have no other means. That enables me to reject any suggestion that the Government do not recognise the position of carers. We recognise their position three times over. First, we recognise their position, because ICA is available during the time that people are caring and it is an income support benefit. Secondly, we recognise their position because during the time that they receive ICA they continue to receive credits for the long-term benefits. That should not be underestimated because it gives credits towards entitlement for retirement pension, widow's pension, sickness benefit and invalidity benefit. I remind the House that retirement pension can be awarded on the basis of a single year's paid contribution, and the rest of the entitlement can be made up of credits. Thirdly, we recognise their position because if someone coming off


ICA finds himself or herself unable to claim unemployment benefit and without resources, income support is available.
I will consider the amendment now and explain to the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) that the amendment goes much further than she intended because it would enable all those who have received ICA to draw unemployment benefit without having paid any national insurance contributions at any time. I suspect that the hon. Lady wanted to revert to the present position with regard to ICA. Certainly the amendment would run contrary to our intentions.
We have argued that unemployment benefit is intended to provide a measure of compensation for people who normally work for an employer when they experience short periods of unemployment. I have thought carefully about the clause and this provision. I do not believe that one can say that someone who has been caring for a relative or another person for a number of years is in a position analogous to someone who has recently been in employment and dependent upon the income from that employment for maintenance.
The position is different. Our new contribution conditions are intended to reinforce the link between paid employment and payment of national insurance contributions. In doing so, we intend to establish equity in the treatment of all potential claimants. I raised that problem in Committee with the hon. Members for Derby, South and for Preston. Matters of equity arise if, in the case of ICA, we say that credits should count as paid contributions.
I wish to add to my comments in Committee, because I have been anxious to understand the practical consequences of the clause. I wish to put to the House and, in particular, to the hon. Members for Derby, South and for Preston, some practical examples of what the clause means. In each case, I have considered somebody who might give up work in November 1988 to go and care for somebody. After a period, that person may cease to care—in the sad event, for example, of the death of the person for whom they have been caring—and seek to return to employment. In each case, I am assuming that the person has a full record of contributions until November 1988. If that person wished to return to employment in 1989 and were seeking a job, there would be no difficulty in his claiming unemployment benefit, because the contribution record depends on the tax years 1986–87 and 1987–88, both of which are prior to the start of the ICA award.
If the person was away caring for two years from November 1988, he would cease to draw ICA from November 1990 and seek to claim unemployment benefit. Again, the claim would depend on the tax years 1987–88 and 1988–89. Unemployment benefit would be payable because the person was working for the whole of 1987–88 and would have paid the necessary contributions in that year and would have ICA credit after that period.
If a person gave up work in November 1988 and was caring for three years, he or she would cease to draw ICA in November 1991 and try to claim unemployment benefit. The claim would depend on the contribution record in 1988–89 and 1989–90. In that case, the person would have been working between April 1988 and November 1988 and so would have paid contributions on 25 times the lower

earnings level during that period. Again, the claim to unemployment benefit would succeed, based on those 25 contributions at the lower earnings level and on the ICA credits for the balance of the year and in 1989–90.
As I do not wish to mislead anybody, I admit that, if I took my example for another year, the claim to unemployment benefit would fail. However, I have shown that it is still possible for someone out of employment and caring for a period of up to three years to qualify for unemployment benefit. The average length of award of ICA is between 18 and 28 months, depending on the period that we consider. It varies a little from time to time. The average, therefore tends to be quite a short period. Of course, some people care for very long periods, but, equally, if the average is between 18 and 28 months, many people receive ICA for only a very short period.
Long-term carers will not be able to claim unemployment benefit if they exceed the period in the examples that I have quoted, but those people have not depended recently on income from employment. They have drawn ICA for a considerable period, but they are not neglected, and, if they have to be supported by the state, income support is available to them.
I hope that I have helped to put the measure into perspective and explained why I have concluded that, reluctantly, I cannot accept the amendment or even a different version which would single out ICA claimants so that credits would be treated as if they were paid contributions.

Mrs. Beckett: I wish to respond briefly to two points raised by the Minister. First, he believes that the Bill will reinforce the link between paid work and unemployment benefit. He does not wish to single out those who receive ICA in respect of their treatment regarding credits, but, as he has acknowledged, ICA is a replacement for paid work. He has introduced a new definition into the approach to ICA—that it is not a replacement for paid work, but a replacement for paid work which has recently been left. Presumably, therefore, there is a period during which it is considered that ICA is a replacement for paid work but, after that, it becomes an end in itself.
Secondly, the Minister sought to press the case that it does not matter that the Government are doing this, because only very few people will lose and the vast majority of carers are entitled to ICA only for an average of 18 months to 28 months. His examples supported his argument, although he conceded that they would not have supported him so favourably if he had chosen a different year. He argues that very few people will be affected and that most people will not find themselves in a different position. If that is so, there is no harm in protecting those few people who, in many cases, left paid work before the Minister redefined ICA as a replacement for paid work. He admitted that the cost to the Government of improving this disadvantageous clause would be extremely slight. He has therefore encouraged me to press our amendment.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 211, Noes 254.

Division No. 133]
[7.16 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Archer, Rt Hon Peter


Allen, Graham
Armstrong, Ms Hilary


Alton, David
Ashdown, Paddy


Anderson, Donald
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack






Ashton, Joe
Heffer, Eric S.


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Hinchliffe, David


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Barron, Kevin
Holland, Stuart


Battle, John
Home Robertson, John


Beckett, Margaret
Hood, James


Beggs, Roy
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Bell, Stuart
Howells, Geraint


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Hoyle, Doug


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hume, John


Blair, Tony
Illsley, Eric


Blunkett, David
Ingram, Adam


Boateng, Paul
Janner, Greville


Boyes, Roland
John, Brynmor


Bradley, Keith
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Buchan, Norman
Kirkwood, Archy


Buckley, George
Lambie, David


Caborn, Richard
Lamond, James


Callaghan, Jim
Leadbitter, Ted


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Leighton, Ron


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Lewis, Terry


Canavan, Dennis
Litherland, Robert


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Livingstone, Ken


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Livsey, Richard


Clay, Bob
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Clelland, David
McAllion, John


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
McAvoy, Tom


Cohen, Harry
McCartney, Ian


Coleman, Donald
Macdonald, Calum


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McFall, John


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
McGrady, E. K.


Corbett, Robin
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Corbyn, Jeremy
McKelvey, William


Cousins, Jim
McLeish, Henry


Cox, Tom
McNamara, Kevin


Crowther, Stan
McTaggart, Bob


Cryer, Bob
McWilliam, John


Cummings, J.
Madden, Max


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Cunningham, Dr John
Mallon, Seamus


Dalyell, Tam
Marek, Dr John


Darling, Alastair
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Martin, Michael (Springburn)


Dewar, Donald
Martlew, Eric


Dixon, Don
Maxton, John


Dobson, Frank
Meacher, Michael


Douglas, Dick
Michael, Alun


Dunnachie, James
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Fearn, Ronald
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Morgan, Rhodri


Flannery, Martin
Morley, Elliott


Flynn, Paul
Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)


Fraser, John
Mowlam, Marjorie


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Mullin, Chris


Galbraith, Samuel
Murphy, Paul


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Nellist, Dave


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


George, Bruce
O'Brien, William


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
O'Neill, Martin


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Gordon, Ms Mildred
Patchett, Terry


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Pendry, Tom


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Pike, Peter


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Grocott, Bruce
Prescott, John


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Haynes, Frank
Quin, Ms Joyce


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Radice, Giles





Randall, Stuart
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Reid, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Richardson, Ms Jo
Thomas, Dafydd Elis


Robertson, George
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Robinson, Geoffrey
Turner, Dennis


Rogers, Allan
Vaz, Keith


Rooker, Jeff
Wall, Pat


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Wareing, Robert N.


Rowlands, Ted
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wigley, Dafydd


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Williams, Rt Hon A. J.


Short, Clare
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Skinner, Dennis
Winnick, David


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Worthington, Anthony


Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)
Wray, James


Snape, Peter
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Soley, Clive



Spearing, Nigel
Tellers for the Ayes:


Steinberg, Gerald
Mr. Ken Eastham and


Stott, Roger
Mrs. Llin Golding.


Strang, Gavin



NOES


Allason, Rupert
Day, Stephen


Amess, David
Dicks, Terry


Amos, Alan
Dorrell, Stephen


Arbuthnot, James
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dykes, Hugh


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Atkins, Robert
Fallon, Michael


Atkinson, David
Fookes, Miss Janet


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Forman, Nigel


Baldry, Tony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Batiste, Spencer
Gale, Roger


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bendall, Vivian
Gill, Christopher


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Benyon, W.
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bevan, David Gilroy
Goodlad, Alastair


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Body, Sir Richard
Gow, Ian


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bottomley, Peter
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Greenway, Harry (Eating N)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Bowis, John
Gregory, Conal


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Grist, Ian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Ground, Patrick


Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Hannam, John


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Harris, David


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hawkins, Christopher


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Buck, Sir Antony
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Burns, Simon
Heddle, John


Burt, Alistair
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Butler, Chris
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Butterfill, John
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Carrington, Matthew
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Carttiss, Michael
Holt, Richard


Cash, William
Hordern, Sir Peter


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Howard, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Churchill, Mr
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Couchman, James
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Irvine, Michael


Curry, David
Jack, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Jackson, Robert






Janman, Timothy
Raffan, Keith


Jessel, Toby
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Renton, Tim


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rhodes James, Robert


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Riddick, Graham


Key, Robert
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Roe, Mrs Marion


Knapman, Roger
Rost, Peter


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rowe, Andrew


Knowles, Michael
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knox, David
Ryder, Richard


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lang, Ian
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Latham, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lawrence, Ivan
Scott, Nicholas


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lilley, Peter
Sims, Roger


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lord, Michael
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Speed, Keith


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Squire, Robin


Maclean, David
Steen, Anthony


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stern, Michael


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Stevens, Lewis


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Madel, David
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Major, Rt Hon John
Sumberg, David


Malins, Humfrey
Summerson, Hugo


Maples, John
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Marland, Paul
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thornton, Malcolm


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thurnham, Peter


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Tracey, Richard


Mellor, David
Tredinnick, David


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Trippier, David


Miller, Hal
Trotter, Neville


Mills, Iain
Twinn, Dr Ian


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Viggers, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Moore, Rt Hon John
Waldegrave, Hon William


Morrison, Sir Charles (Devizes)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Moss, Malcolm
Waller, Gary


Moynihan, Hon C.
Ward, John


Mudd, David
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Neale, Gerrard
Warren, Kenneth


Nelson, Anthony
Watts, John


Neubert, Michael
Wells, Bowen


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wheeler, John


Nicholls, Patrick
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Wilkinson, John


Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Wilshire, David


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Oppenheim, Phillip
Winterton, Nicholas


Page, Richard
Wolfson, Mark


Paice, James
Wood, Timothy


Patnick, Irvine
Woodcock, Mike


Patten, Chris (Bath)
Yeo, Tim


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth



Porter, David (Waveney)
Tellers for the Noes:


Portillo, Michael
Mr. David Lightbown and


Powell, William (Corby)
Mr. Tony Durant.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 6

UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFIT AND OCCUPATIONAL PENSION

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in line 37, after '55', insert
'and in subsection (1) after "55" there shall be inserted the words "and has retired from regular employment".'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this, we shall take amendment No. 17, in page 6, line 39, at end insert—
'(c) in subsection (1), after "55" there shall be inserted the words "other than a person who has retired from the police service, the fire service, or any other prescribed occupation at the normal retirement age for that occupation".'.

Mrs. Beckett: The amendments raise the issue of the deprivation that will be suffered by those who begin to draw occupational pension at the age of 55 as a result of the offset of that occupational pension against their entitlement to unemployment benefit.
Clearly, all those who take early retirement—whether voluntarily or under a degree of pressure — will be affected. One of the amendments deals with the general group of people who may be in a position to draw occupational pensions and may, indeed, be forced into that position. The second deals with specific groups in the public service the police and fire services. Many such people may be liable, as part of contractual understandings and conditions of employment, to retire at 55.
Hon. Members will no doubt recall that a similar provision now exists for the offsetting of occupational pensions over the value of £35 a week against unemployment benefit entitlement for those over 60. They may also be aware that, whether we agree with it or not, that provision is part of a slightly different package of benefit provisions. Those over 60, as matters now stand, can if need be draw the long-term rate of supplementary benefit. They do not have to sign on as being available for work: they are not subject to the same degree of pressure in that regard as younger people.
Whatever we think of that provision, there has been some recognition that the Government were arguing that if someone was drawing part or all of his occupational pension he was acknowledging that he had retired. They have taken some steps towards recognising the logic of their decision by treating that person in the same way, in some respects, as others who have retired and are beyond the age of compulsory retirement. However, those compensating arguments do not apply if the offset of occupational pension against unemployment benefit is to apply from the age of 55, as is proposed in the Bill.
The provision is in many ways inconsistent with action that the Government have taken in the past. The Minister may recall that my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) reminded us in Committee that those forced into, or voluntarily taking, early retirement or redundancy were, by specific guidance and decisions from the Government, ruled not to have made themselves voluntarily unemployed, so that they were not penalised for taking an action that might be helpful to society as a whole — for example, where large-scale redundancies were threatened — although they would suffer the


penalty of abatement of their pension against unemployment benefit. That provision also will not apply to those who are placed in such a position at 55.
That seems to imply that the Government have been saying to those over 60 who are in such a position that they are in effect retired. Now, in the Bill, the Government are telling people over 55 that if they are out of the employment market, and if, because of the level of their income, they begin to draw their occupational pension, they, too, are in effect retired.
In debating various aspects of the Bill, we have seen that the DHSS and the Department of Employment do not seem to be wholly in touch with each other. I suppose that it is just possible that it has not been in the forefront of the consciousness of Ministers at the DHSS that the Employment Gazette for May 1987 showed that, in 1986, although 53·4 per cent. of men aged 60 to 64 were economically active, 80·3 per cent. of men aged 55 to 59 were economically active. That presumably means not only that the vast majority of those aged 55 to 59 are fortunate enough to be economically active, but that it is much less likely that men of those years would regard themselves as retired.
As has been argued this evening in a different context, a variety of tests are available to the Government if they feel that someone is drawing benefit and is not really available for work, or seeking it. Not only are those tests available in law, but both the tests and their interpretation have been significantly tightened in recent years. It is not the case that there is no recourse open to the Government to deal with an individual who is judged with good cause to have been retired from the age of 55. However, the Government are saying that everyone over 55 who begins to draw occupational pension has retired.
People who find themselves in that position already face a financial penalty. There is the faint possibility—I believe that the Minister referred to it in Committee—that some people in fairly senior positions are fortunate enough to work for companies that are prepared to make special provision for them if they retire at 55. They may have been pushed out in the wake of some takeover, for instance. Such companies may be prepared to ensure that, although such employees take their pensions early, they do not suffer a financial penalty for so doing.
However, the vast majority of those who find themselves in that position at the age of 55 will receive no compensation from their employers for having to take an actuarially reduced pension. They are already facing a penalty, and, at 55, they are facing a greater loss than someone who is in the same position at 60. Adding insult to the injury of having to lose out on pension entitlement, the Government have decided that, because those people are drawing pension, they must not be entitled to unemployment benefit.
Many people in employment who find themselves in such circumstances will be pushed out of the labour market by the present economic climate. Their local community, and perhaps even their trade union representatives, may have encouraged them to take redundancy or early retirement if their employer requires a large number of redundancies, rather than putting younger men or women in that position. The case was cited to us of members of the Institution of Professional Civil Servants in the Devonport dockyard who may find themselves forced out of the labour market in the comparatively near future.
A young man of 26 or so, forced to take retirement, might receive only about 10 months' worth of compensation, and would therefore be in no position to keep his wife and family in reasonable circumstances, or with anything like the income that they had previously enjoyed. The IPCS, like many others in its circumstances — including employers — is encouraging its older members to take retirement. Although they will suffer some penalty in the form of actuarial reduction of benefit, they will be in rather better circumstances than the younger people involved.
The IPCS and various others who have written to us have pointed out that, because of the actuarial reduction in itself, and also because not many pension schemes are as good as those of the police and fire services—I shall deal with public service schemes in a moment·people may begin to draw occupational pensions not because they consider that they have retired or wish to have retired, but because their income would otherwise be so low that they would suffer substantial difficulties. They take the gamble of the actuarial reduction, and go for the short-term help of drawing occupational pension rather earlier. It seems entirely wrong that people in those circumstances should lose their right to unemployment benefit, for which they may have contributed for 40 years. The Government are proposing to remove that right suddenly.
The Minister may have an answer to my next question tonight—he did not in Committee. Do the Government intend to compel these people to be covered by the restart scheme and to take part in interviews during which they are questioned about their availability for work? The Department of Employment is as concerned about such people as the DHSS.
The specific case concerns the police and fire services. The vast majority of people in those services are expected to retire by 55. The Minister said in Committee that people know that when they enter those occupations. That is true, but it is equally true that, when they take up their job, they know that they pay heavy pension contributions into their occupational pension scheme while making national insurance contributions like the rest of us. In return for those contributions, they know that they will receive entitlement to an occupational pension from the age of 55, because that is the age at which society has decided they ought to consider retiring because of the nature of their occupation. It is in society's interests that they take early retirement. Such people will also have the expectation that they will be entitled to unemployment benefit should they need it when they have left their initial employment.
It is ridiculous for the Minister to suggest that people in the police and fire services know the conditions of their contract. Their contract is not yet being breached. They remain forced to retire at 55 and entitled to draw pensions for which they have contributed heavily during their working lives. The contract with the state, however, is being breached in that their contributions towards unemployment benefit will no longer entitle them to that benefit should they begin to draw more than £35 in occupational pension. Moreover, that sum has not been increased for many years, so it represents a much smaller pension than when the provision was introduced. Furthermore, the provision was introduced for people aged 60 or more.
We have found it hard to understand why the Government have picked on the age of 55. The Minister was able to assist us in Committee. He gave us the reason with admirable clarity. He said:
it was an arbitrary line to take a step in the direction of concentrating help that was available.
Perhaps even more interesting, he said:
I acknowledge that it has not gone the whole way". — [Official Report Standing Committee E; 8 December 1987, c. 456.]
I am not sure what that means. I suspect that it means that the Government thought that they might get away with choosing the age of 55. They may even have considered that at no age should people be entitled to draw unemployment benefit should they unfortunately have to draw against their occupational pension. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what he has in mind. There is no doubt, however, that 55 has been chosen arbitrarily. It is none the better for that.
7.45 pm
It was made plain to the Committee that policemen or fire fighters who accept their contract of employment, pay their contributions and retire, draw on their occupational pension and are fortunate enough now to be in work, but who lose their job after January 1989, may well lose their entitlement to unemployment benefit although they have continued to contribute to the national insurance scheme to pay for that entitlement.
There is no doubt that, if the Bill becomes law, people who retire from the police or fire services and become unemployed, usually involuntarily, will not be entitled to unemployment benefit for which they have paid, although they will be required, should they get employment, to make contributions which will not entitle them to a further penny of benefit. That is plainly ridiculous and unjust.
Although the Minister has leaned heavily on pension circumstances and the generosity of the scheme, I must remind him that the heavy contributions that have been made to pay for occupational pension benefits have been taken into account, as have the advantages of early retirement, in salary negotiations and negotiations on conditions.
I should like to demonstrate how strangely the Government are behaving. They tell us consistently—it is the Prime Minister's favourite exhortation — that people should save and take responsibility for themselves in retirement. We are told that we should not rely on the state. People who have gone into occupational pension schemes have done exactly what the Prime Minister has instructed, but such provision for retirement in early years is offset against unemployment benefit entitlement. If, however, people have not chosen, or have been forced into, an occupational pension scheme but have income from investments, they may well receive £35 a week or substantially more. That sum will be quite irrelevant to entitlement to unemployment benefit as long as national insurance contributions have been paid. Only investment by way of an occupational pension scheme, which is compulsory for people in the fire and police services, leads to this denial of rights.
The Minister did not make any case for this decision in Committee. He merely said that it was a means of saving more money. Off the top of my head, I recall that it was £65 million in a full year. That sum will be saved at the

expense of 27,000 to 30,000 people who will lose out on their full or partial entitlement to unemployment benefit. That is quite unjustifiable, and it is why we thought it right to give the House an opportunity to reject part of these provisions.

Dr. John G. Blackburn: As a matter of courtesy and honour, which the House would expect of me, I must declare that, for the past eight years, I have been privileged to represent the 90,000 members of the National Association of Retired Police Officers as parliamentary adviser.
Amendment No. 17 attracts my attention and support. We should consider the effect of clause 6 on one section of the community—retired police officers. We encourage suitably qualified people to take up a career in the police service. They give dedicated service to the public and then, at the age of 55, in certain cases, depending upon rank, by regulation they are made redundant. It is not their wish; it is the wish of Parliament by regulation that they cease their occupation.
How does that affect constituencies? After giving years of dedicated service as police officers these people find themselves made redundant at 55. I know that "made redundant" is an emotive expression, but they are pensioned off and have no further useful service to give in the constabulary. I can say with confidence that there is a retired police officer in every constituency in England and Wales, so, when we debate this clause, each and every one of us is debating something that affects our constituents.
The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) was right to explain that these men and women pay a very heavy price for the pensions that they eventually hope to receive. In August 1982, when the House was in recess, by statutory instrument and without debate, their contributions were increased: the pension contribution of male police officers went up to 11 per cent., while that of female officers went up to 7 per cent. There was no debate and no consultation. Hon. Members can readily imagine that serving police officers at that time looked forward to receiving their pension but also felt that if there was little opportunity on retirement to obtain other work they had the safeguard of receiving benefit under the social security legislation. Many officers serving at that time retired in the full and certain hope that if they found difficulty the state, through the social security legislation, would be able to give benefit to them.
In addition, they had made a formal application to enhance their pensions, particularly in respect of another section of pensioners, police preserved-rate widows. That particular submission went before a committee of the police negotiating board and was fully negotiated, and an agreement was reached on 25 February 1986. The agreed settlement—it may surprise hon. Members, particularly in relation to pensions — was £1·41. I was shocked, staggered and disappointed beyond words when the Home Secretary refused to accept that negotiated settlement for pensioners. As a result of parliamentary questions, it transpired that it was the first occasion in history when a negotiated settlement on pensions had been overturned by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department.
We now place a further burden on the men and women who have served us so well for many years in the police force. It is against that background that I find the


amendment justified. It is full of knowledge and common sense. In a spirit of honesty, which I hope the House will always expect of me, I must say that I find great difficulty in going into the Government Lobby tonight on this amendment. I take no pleasure in this but I am placed in this position by the clause as it stands. That is why I am delighted to see amendment 17. However, it is with sadness that I take this stand.
But that is not enough. At this late stage of debate on the Bill I plead with the Minister, with all the sincerity that I can muster on behalf of more than 90,000 police pensioners, to pay heed to this amendment and the submissions of hon. Members and to say that he will review this matter with as much charity — no, not charity, because these people do not want charity, they want justice, and I happen to believe that their case is just. They retired, knowing what the rules were, and now, having retired, they find that the regulations will be changed by a decision of the House tonight—a decision which will affect every one of them. Worse than that, it will affect those police officers who are finding difficulty in getting employment. Therefore, I have a moral decision to take tonight: I must support retired police officers and others who also have public service occupational pensions. I ask yet again that the Minister will pay heed to this for the benefit of people who are really in need. I ask that he should he as considerate as I know he can be.

The Minister for Social Security and the Disabled (Mr. Nicholas Scott): Both these amendments seek to exempt certain groups of people from the effect of the abatement provisions. The first amendment raises the general principle, and the second moves to specific groups, particularly police officers and firemen who retire at the normal retirement age for their occupation, and seeks to remove them from this provision.
I understand what is involved and, if I were in any danger of forgetting, it has been reinforced by the eloquent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn), with his usual fairness and conviction, putting forward the case that we heard in Committee, particularly on behalf of police officers and the retired members of that profession with whose interests he is concerned. I know that there are strong opinions about this, and it has been borne in upon me in representations that I have had from the Police Federation, from hon. Members and most recently from my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley, West. We are discussing here both the general point and that particular one, and I seek to address both of them.
On the general point, as we reminded ourselves in Committee, the idea of abatement of unemployment benefit against occupational pension is not new. It was first mooted by the National Insurance Advisory Committee in 1968. We knew that the then Labour Government produced regulations which would have provided for abatement from the age of 58, but were dissuaded from pursuing that course at the time. Early in their life, this Government provided for abatement from the age of 60. I well understand the point made by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) that there is a difference between 60 and 55, for the reasons that she set out in her speech.
8 pm
In a sense, I do not rest my case on the principle that the hon. Lady enunciated. The principle that the House

should bear in mind when it decides on the general matter is that the intention of unemployment benefit is to provide a measure of income replacement because of the unforeseen and unexpected contingency of unemployment for those normally reliant upon earnings from employment. We have to ask whether it should be a general principle that people who know that they will retire at a certain age, who have made provision for it, perhaps by enhanced contributions, and who have completed a career with an occupational pension available to them, should then have the opportunity to avail themselves of unemployment benefit that is within the national insurance scheme precisely for the purpose of providing protection against that unforeseeable and unexpected contingency of unemployment. That is the principle upon which I rest my belief that we are right to introduce abatement from age 55.
I acknowledge that the expectations of police officers and firemen will be changed by the introduction of the clause. That is why we have given plenty of notice of the proposal. Nobody will be affected before January 1989. Hopefully, it will be possible for people so to arrange their affairs as to minimise the effect of the change.
I return to the point that firemen, police officers and others in this position know from the outset that they will be required to retire at age 55. They know that they have been paying an enhanced contribution towards their pension to make that possible. They know that at that age they will have a generous pension. Particularly in the case of police officers, the training and experience that they have acquired in their profession will make them better fitted than many people of that age for other employment.
The pattern of the police service is that policemen tend to join the force at the age of 18 or 19. If they serve for the 30 years that would give them maximum pension entitlement of two thirds of their final salary, they would retire at age 48 or 49 and could still claim unemployment benefit for the year for which they would be entitled to it. Anyone who joined the police service up to the age of 24 and who served for 30 years would still be able to get the maximum pension entitlement, leave the service and draw unemployment benefit for 12 months.
My hon. Friend asked me to give fresh consideration to the matter. I have done so for a variety of reasons: because of the representations made by the Police Federation, because of points put to me in Committee, and because of my own background, being the son of a police officer and having spent quite a few years in Northern Ireland in close contact with the Royal Ulster Constabulary. I promised in Committee that I would reflect further on the position of the police and of others in a similar situation, and I have done that.
I fully understand the case that is made. If those people have not actually been compelled to pay the contributions, it has been part of their conditions of service that they should pay contributions to a pension scheme during the whole of their service, and that they should pay national insurance contributions into the national insurance fund. Some may be compulsorily retired at age 55. Following the proposed change, their benefit will be liable for abatement. We are talking here about policemen and fire fighters. Such arguments could be put forward on behalf of other groups. The armed forces spring immediately to mind.
I said I would reconsider the point. I also made it plain in Committee that I saw real difficulties about making a special case for certain occupational groups. I know that


it will disappoint my hon. Friend in particular, in view of the case that he put forward this evening, but I have to tell the House that, having weighed the arguments carefully, I do not believe that it would be wise to exempt policemen and firemen from the overall provisions of the scheme.
It might be worth my while pointing out to the House how the abatement scheme will work. Unemployment benefit is reduced by 10p for every 10p after which an occupational pension exceeds £35. That means that unemployment benefit will be extinguished only when a substantial pension is paid. In the case of a married man who receives the higher rate of unemployment benefit to take account of his wife, benefit will not be lost entirely until his occupational pension is £85·90 a week or more. A single man will continue to receive benefit unless his occupational pension is £66·50 a week or more.
I reiterate that the proposed change is to reduce the age at which the provision takes effect, from 60 to 55. I believe that it can be justified in part by the changing pattern of retirement. More and more people are retiring at 55. Indeed, some are retiring earlier. What is more, we are not only reflecting that pattern, but the move from 60 to 55 is in tune with the Government's determination to seek to concentrate the finite resources that are available —increased resources may become available — within the social security system more sharply on those areas where help is needed. I do not believe that those who can retire at age 55 with substantial occupational pensions would fit into that category.
On the general principle, I rest on the point that those who retire at age 55 are not confronted with the unforeseen impact of unemployment. To exempt particular occupational groups, however strong their case may be, would not be a wise decision for the House. I therefore advise the House to reject the amendment.

Mrs. Beckett: We would be happy to pick up the Minister's last point and to see no group affected by the provisions of the clause, but we feel that the Government's case is weaker in some respects than others. Obviously it is the job of an Opposition to probe the weaknesses. The Minister has made a couple of remarks which should be taken up and placed on record in the context of the debate.
The Minister referred to the generosity of the pensions. The hon. Member for Dudley, West (Dr. Blackburn) commented on the level of contributions. It has been suggested to me, and we mentioned this in Committee, that in many cases a person will draw at best a half-rate pension plus a lump sum, which may mean that, for financial reasons, that person will want, and will indeed need, to seek employment.

Mr. Scott: The pension funds for the particular groups about which we are talking provide for pensions of two thirds of final salary. There is an option to take some of that pension out as a capital sum, with very generous treatment of that capital sum by the Inland Revenue. That is an option, but most of the schemes about which we are talking will provide for a pension of two thirds of final salary after 30 years' service.

Mrs. Beckett: I do not have the papers with me, but I believe that that point was made in the context of the fire service. It may well be something to do with the pattern of employment. That observation was made in Committee

and it was not queried there. I am not complaining about that, but, when I had the papers with me, that argument had some substance.
People are not drawing sums of money on which it is necessarily comfortable or easy to live. That is all the more true because of the age level that we are now discussing. It could be argued—this is why the previous Labour Government backed down on proposals which did not go as far as the present ones—that it is more likely that at the age of 60 family commitments will have decreased. However, at the age of 55 many people still have dependent children, particularly those young people who fit the Government's definition of dependent, who are under 25 and unfortunate enough to be unemployed and receive lower rates of benefits. If they are younger, they are subject to the range of provisions that we discussed earlier, which means that the Government expect young people to remain dependent on their parents at a substantially higher age than many hon. Members would consider to be right. At the age of 55 many people may well have families who need their help and support.
The Minister said that, because the provisions will not come into effect until January 1989, the Government have given plenty of notice that there will be a change, yet he did not recognise the point that was made in Committee, and again tonight, that people who have already retired may have been fortunate enough to find employment, but that they may lose that employment after 1989 and be caught by the provision. How on earth are such people expected to provide for a change that they could not possibly have expected? I suspect that, if any Opposition Member had suggested to them that a Conservative Government would do such a thing, they would have rejected such a suggestion with outrage. There is no way in which retired people or those on the brink of retirement can adjust to cope with the effects of the provisions.
In a sense, the Government are making a rod for their own back. They have said, reiterated and stuck to the argument, that people who leave the fire or police service at the age of 55 have retired and must look to their occupational pensions for full support. The Government do not expect them to seek employment. The consequence of that is that the Government are saying that the income that those people receive in their retirement should be such that they should not need to seek employment. The Minister's right hon. Friend the Home Secretary may not thank him for that information.

Mr. Scott: Someone who is about to retire now would be entitled to draw unemployment benefit until January 1989. That would be virtually the whole of the entitlement for unemployment benefit, which runs for only 12 months.

Mrs. Beckett: The Minister is right, but that is not the point that I was making. Someone on the brink of retirement now who obtains employment, but loses it after January 1989, will be affected by the clause and will not he in a position to make any adjustment to his circumstances or to his arrangements. The Government are saying to such people, "You have retired. We consider your occupational pension scheme, although you have paid contributions, to be generous. We consider that that is enough for you and that you will not be looking for employment. We do not expect you to be looking for employment or need it." I suspect that that will have consequences for the negotiations that will be undertaken


on pay and conditions in the police and fire services. It is right that there should be such consequences, because the Government are reneging on one side of a deal.
Whether they work in the police or fire service, or in other occupations, people find themselves, through circumstances almost invariably beyond their control, forced into early retirement. Most men or women over 55 are still available for work, and looking for work. The clause is wholly misconceived. It is particularly misconceived in the case of people with patterns of employment such as those in the police and fire services.
Although I should have liked to press both amendments to a Division, to save the time of the House I shall withdraw amendment No. 16, but I shall formally move amendment No. 17 and press it to a Division.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment proposed: No. 17, in page 6, line 39, at end insert—
'(c) in subsection (1), after "55" there shall be inserted the words "other than a person who has retired from the police service, the fire service, or any other prescribed occupation at the normal retirement age for that occupation".'.—[Mrs. Beckett.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 250.

Division No. 134]
[8.15 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Crowther, Stan


Allen, Graham
Cryer, Bob


Anderson, Donald
Cummings, J.


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Dalyell, Tam


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Darling, Alistair


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NEj
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Barron, Kevin
Dewar, Donald


Battle, John
Dixon, Don


Beckett, Margaret
Dobson, Frank


Beggs, Roy
Douglas, Dick


Bell, Stuart
Dunn, Bob


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dunnachie, James


Bennett, A. F, (D'nfn &amp; R'dish)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Bermingham, Gerald
Eastham, Ken


Bidwell, Sydney
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Blair, Tony
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Blunkett, David
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Boateng, Paul
Faulds, Andrew


Boyes, Roland
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bradley, Keith
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Flannery, Martin


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Flynn, Paul


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fraser, John


Buchan, Norman
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Buckley, George
Galbraith, Samuel


Caborn, Richard
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Callaghan, Jim
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
George, Bruce


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Gilbert, Rt,Hon Dr John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Canavan, Dennis
Golding, Mrs Llin


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Gordon, Ms Mildred


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clay, Bob
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinbu	rgh S)


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Grocott, Bruce


Cohen, Harry
Harman, Ms Harriet


Coleman, Donald
Haynes, Frank


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Heffer, Eric S.


Corbett, Robin
Hinchliffe, David


Cousins, Jim
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Cox, Tom
Holland, Stuart





Home Robertson, John
Murphy, Paul


Hood, James
Nellist, Dave


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
O'Brien, William


Howells, Geraint
O'Neill, Martin


Hoyle, Doug
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Patchett, Terry


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Pendry, Tom


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Pike, Peter


Illsley, Eric
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Ingram, Adam
Prescott, John


Janner, Greville
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


John, Brynmor
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Radice, Giles


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Randall, Stuart


Kilfedder, James
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Reid, John


Kirkwood, Archy
Richardson, Ms Jo


Lambie, David
Robinson, Geoffrey


Lamond, James
Rogers, Allan


Leadbitter, Ted
Rooker, Jeff


Leighton, Ron
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)
Ross, William (Londonderry E,


Lewis, Terry
Rowlands, Ted


Litherland, Robert
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Livingstone, Ken
Sheerman, Barry


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


McAllion, John
Short, Clare


McAvoy, Tom
Skinner, Dennis


McCartney, Ian
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Macdonald, Calum
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


McFall, John
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


McGrady, E. K.
Snape, Peter


McKelvey, William
Soley, Clive


McLeish, Henry
Spearing, Nigel


McNamara, Kevin
Steinberg, Gerald


McTaggart, Bob
Stott, Roger


McWilliam, John
Strang, Gavin


Madden, Max
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Mallon, Seamus
Thomas, Dafydd Elis


Marek, Dr John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Turner, Dennis


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Vaz, Keith


Martin, Michael (Springburn)
Wall, Pat


Martlew, Eric
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Maxton, John
Wareing, Robert N.


Meacher, Michael
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Meale, Alan
Wigley, Dafydd


Michael, Alun
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wilson, Brian


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Winnick, David


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Worthington, Anthony


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wray, James


Morgan, Rhodri
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Morley, Elliott



Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)
Mr. Frank Cook and


Mowlam, Marjorie
Mr. Allen McKay


Mullin, Chris



NOES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Allason, Rupert
Benyon, W.


Amess, David
Bevan, David Gilroy


Amos, Alan
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arbuthnot, James
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Body, Sir Richard


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Atkins, Robert
Bottomley, Peter


Atkinson, David
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Baldry, Tony
Bowis, John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Batiste, Spencer
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Brazier, Julian


Bellingham, Henry
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Bendall, Vivian
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter






Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Knapman, Roger


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Buck, Sir Antony
Knowles, Michael


Burns, Simon
Knox, David


Burt, Alistair
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Butler, Chris
Lang, Ian


Butterfill, John
Latham, Michael


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Lawrence, Ivan


Carrington, Matthew
Lee, John (Pendle)


Carttiss, Michael
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Cash, William
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Chapman, Sydney
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Lightbown, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lilley, Peter


Cope, John
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Couchman, James
Lord, Michael


Cran, James
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Curry, David
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Maclean, David


Day, Stephen
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dicks, Terry
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Durant, Tony
Major, Rt Hon John


Dykes, Hugh
Malins, Humfrey


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Maples, John


Fallon, Michael
Marland, Paul


Favell, Tony
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fookes, Miss Janet
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Forman, Nigel
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maude, Hon Francis


Fox, Sir Marcus
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gale, Roger
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mellor, David


Glyn, Dr Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Miller, Hal


Gow, Ian
Mills, Iain


Gower, Sir Raymond
Miscampbell, Norman


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Greenway, Harry (Eating N)
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Monro, Sir Hector


Gregory, Conal
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Moore, Rt Hon John


Grist, Ian
Morrison, Sir Charles (Devizes)


Ground, Patrick
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Moss, Malcolm


Hannam, John
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Mudd, David


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Neale, Gerrard


Harris, David
Nelson, Anthony


Hawkins, Christopher
Neubert, Michael


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Nicholls, Patrick


Heddle, John
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Page, Richard


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Paice, James


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Patnick, Irvine


Holt, Richard
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howard, Michael
Porter, David (Waveney)


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Portillo, Michael


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Raffan, Keith


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Redwood, John


Irvine, Michael
Renton, Tim


Jack, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Janman, Timothy
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Jessel, Toby
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


Key, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rowe, Andrew





Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Trippier, David


Ryder, Richard
Trotter, Neville


Sackville, Hon Tom
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sayeed, Jonathan
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Scott, Nicholas
Viggers, Peter


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Sims, Roger
Waller, Gary


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Ward, John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Watts, John


Speed, Keith
Wells, Bowen


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Wheeler, John


Squire, Robin
Whitney, Ray


Stanbrook, Ivor
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Steen, Anthony
Wiggin, Jerry


Stern, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Stevens, Lewis
Wilshire, David


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Winterton, Nicholas


Sumberg, David
Wolfson, Mark


Summerson, Hugo
Wood, Timothy


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Woodcock, Mike


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Yeo, Tim


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thornton, Malcolm



Thurnham, Peter
Tellers for the Noes:


Tracey, Richard
Mr. Peter Lloyd and


Tredinnick, David
Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 11

SCHEMES FOR DISTRIBUTION ETC. OF WELFARE FOODS

Mrs. Beckett: I beg to move amendment No. 18, in page 8, line 3, after 'food' insert
'including the provision of such food to persons whose income is below a prescribed level'.
This amendment deals with welfare foods. The Bill enables the Government to withdraw some of the welfare foods that are now available to pregnant women and young children in low-income families. In this amendment we seek to ensure that some of those people are protected because we believe that the availability of such food is important to them. The effect of the amendment will be to include families who are not eligible for family credit because they are expecting their first child. That is particularly important because the argument that the Government have tended to put in order to justify the withdrawal of that right is that there will be compensation in the rates of family credit. By definition, that compensation will not be available to women expecting their first child, although they will lose their right to free milk. That is particularly worrying for young mothers and others.
It is generally recognised that the quality of nutrition in pregnancy is of considerable importance. It is a retrograde step for the Government to withdraw the entitlement to welfare foods in any case, but especially for families for whom there is no question of the Government's argument about compensation through family credit having any value. That can also be the case for a family where there are already one or two children but where there is another pregnancy. Even if one accepts that the family credit rates include compensation for the loss of welfare foods, it will include compensation only for the loss of the welfare food available to the child and not


for the loss of milk available to the pregnant mother. As I have said, that is a particularly undesirable time for such a benefit to be withdrawn.
Apart from that, a substantial number of low-income families would be entitled to family credit on income grounds, but not even the Government expect them to claim it or it to be awarded to them. The best estimate that the Government have offered—it is based more on hope than on evidence — is that about 60 per cent. of the families entitled to family credit on income grounds will draw it. That still leaves, even on their assumptions, which are not shared by most of those who have studied the matter, some 40 per cent. of low income families who, because they will not draw family credit, for whatever reason, will not receive even the element of compensation that the Government have included, and will simply face the loss of the benefit.
It has been suggested to the Opposition that at present some 7,000 pregnant women and some 77,000 children are entitled to and receive welfare milk without being on supplementary benefit or family income supplement. Those are some of the people who will lose if the Government use the enabling power, as it has been suggested that they will. We move the amendment to ensure that such low-income families retain that entitlement.

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) is right in most of what she says about the Government's intention to end the low-income scheme, but she has not presented the case as fully as she might have done. I should like to set out how we see the arrangements working in future.
For those on income support there is, of course, no change from the present situation. They will qualify for free milk and vitamins in the future in the same way as they do now. I should like to make one point perfectly clear in case there is any doubt about it. An expectant mother who lives in an income support household will qualify for welfare foods during her pregnancy, because the assessment of the household allows for welfare food to be given to a pregnant girl or any pregnant woman in the household irrespective of whether she is the main claimant or the main claimant's daughter. That point caused some concern in Committee, and I wanted to make it clear.
Another point that came up in Committee related to young girls under 16 who might be in local authority care. I should like to point out to the House, particularly to those who served on the Committee, that section 21 of the Child Care Act 1980 imposes a duty on local authorities to ensure that children in care are provided with accommodation and that they are well maintained. The duty on a local authority can best be summed up by saying that it is expected to act as a good parent towards the children in its care.
The hon. Member for Derby, South drew attention to the position of expectant mothers and family credit. With regard to family credit in general, the amount of money that is being built into family credit for welfare foods is £2·;55. That sum has been calculated on the basis of what school meals cost over the year. With regard to children who are under school age, the sum is considerably more generous than the sum that the family will need to find to provide the milk, which we estimate to cost £1·82. The

£2·55 that the family receives in family credit is intended to replace the free milk and vitamins, and it does so adequately.
It is true that a pregnant woman will not be able to qualify for family credit if it is her first pregnancy, but, after all, that derives from the nature of the scheme. Family credit is a benefit for families with children. Our proposal that family credit should be assessed on a six-monthly basis means that there will be more frequent adjustments to take account of any new arrivals in the family. Extra sums of £2·55 will be payable in respect of those extra babies as they arrive. I emphasise to the House that we see the proposal leading to many more, rather than fewer, people being helped.
The hon. Member for Derby, South was concerned about the take-up of family income supplement. I am concerned about that, too; but I emphasise that the take-up of the low-income scheme has been much lower than the take-up of family income supplement. It has been running at about 7 per cent. I reiterate the hon. Lady's estimate that only about 6,800 expectant mothers take up entitlement of free milk under the low-income scheme. We think that most of them are women who are pregnant for the first time; and most will probably have been in work recently and are likely now to be eligible for the new statutory maternity pay. They will be outside the scope of the scheme based on low income.
We believe that the cash provision that we propose will go to many more children than currently receive welfare foods. About 124,000 children are presently passported through family income supplement to free milk and a further 77,000 receive free supplies under the low-income scheme, whereas we estimate that 300,000 children under the age of five in family credit families will receive the £2·55. The new arrangements will help around 100,001) more children. As I emphasised, the take-up of the low-income scheme has been low and disappointing so far.
For all those reasons, while I recognise that a small group of women will not be eligible for welfare foods, as they have been under the low-income scheme, I am pleased to be able to tell the House that a much larger number of children will benefit in future. The vast majority of expectant mothers who are on low incomes will continue to be looked after under income support, and that will be so whether the woman is the main claimant in the income support household, or perhaps the daughter of the claimant. In either case, the woman will be given welfare foods during the period of her pregnancy and afterwards when the child is born.

Mrs. Beckett: I have listened with care and interest to what the Minister said. I wonder why it always seems to be impossible for the Government to say that they will give a little more in family credit to 300,000 children without deciding that as a consequence they have to withdraw benefit from some other people who are equally badly off and in low-income families. I note that the Minister did not contest the figures that we gave—the 7,000 pregnant women and about 76,000 to 77,000 children in low-income families who are now likely to lose their entitlement to welfare foods. No reason has been given for why that is necessary. It is simply suggested that, because a greater number of pregnant women or children may gain to some extent, that makes it all right.
The Minister did not answer my point about a pregnant woman in a family where family credit is payable and


where compensation might be paid for the loss of welfare foods for the children in the family but not for the loss of welfare foods for the pregnant mother.
The Minister referred to the low take-up of the scheme and said that it was all right to abolish it, as the take-up of family credit will be higher. I should be more impressed by that argument if I did not recall that, not in the Bill but as part of the pattern of changes of which this is one, the Government are making sure that low-income families in a different context will not be entitled to free school meals any more. Some 250,000 children are losing by that, although the take-up of that scheme is substantially higher than the take-up of family credit. The Government are on fairly weak ground in that element of change.
I am aware of the fact that we are under substantial pressure of time. For that reason, and for that reason only, I do not advise my hon. Friends to vote on the amendment, but I hope very much that what has been said in the House and in Committee will be noted in another place and that a little more time will be available for noble Lords to discuss the issue.
Therefore, with considerable reluctance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 16

COMMENCEMENT

Amendment made: No. 19, in page 12, line 38, at end insert—
'Section (Up-rating Order);'.—[Mr. Portillo.]

Mr. Portillo: I beg to move amendment No. 43, in page 12, line 41, at end insert
'and sections 29, 33 and 53 of the Social Security Act 1986'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Government amendment No. 44.

Mr. Portillo: The effect of amendment No. 43 is to commence the amendments to sections 29, 33 and 53 of the Social Security Act 1986 which are to be made by schedule 4 to the Bill.
Amendment No. 44 has three effects. It provides for payments from the social fund in Northern Ireland and recoverable overpayments of housing benefit and other social security benefits made in Northern Ireland to be recovered by the Secretary of State from prescribed benefits in Great Britain. In the case of the social fund payments, that power is also extended to enable the Secretary of State to recover an award for a partner of the recipient and from a liable relative. The principal reason for making the power retrospective to 6 April 1987 is to apply it to amounts recovered since that date in respect to overpayments arising in Northern Ireland.
The need for the amendment arose in order to prescribe for the recovery of social fund loans made in this country when the applicant moves to Northern Ireland. The existing powers in section 33 of the 1986 Act were inadequate for the purpose, and that obviously gave rise to some doubt about the powers contained in sections 29 and 53 which provide for the recovery of housing benefit and social security overpayments. That is the reason for the proposed amendments.

Mrs. Beckett: I do not propose to detain the House, but I	 am sure that the Minister would be disappointed if, at some stage, we did not take the opportunity to point out that one of the reasons why we have the Bill is that the Government are still correcting the legislation.
When we consider the amendments that the Government are now seeking to move, it is clear that they are substantial and I believe I am right in saying that they were tabled as late as Monday of this week. That should go on record so that when the Minister explains to us that of course they understand what the law is doing, that they have got the wording right and that we are mistaken in our observations to suggest otherwise, that can be placed in context.
Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18

CITATION

Amendments made: No. 20, in page 14, line 4, leave out '10' and insert '(Up-rating Orders)'.

No. 21, in page 14, line 6, leave out '10' and insert '( Up-rating Orders)'.—[ Mr. Portillo.]

Schedule 3

THE SOCIAL FUND

Mr. Robin Cook: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 17, line 15, after 'meet', insert
'the cost of community care, exceptional needs or'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 24, in page 17, line 17, at end insert
'and to meet such other expenses as appear to the Secretary of State should be paid as of right to all persons of the prescribed descriptions in such circumstances.'.
No. 28, in page 17, line 20, after 'allocate', insert 'prescribed'.

Mr. Cook: During the Conservative party conference, I was greatly encouraged to read reports in the press that, when the current Secretary of State for Health and Social Security took office, he did his best to rid himself of the albatross of the social fund. Unfortunately, he could not persuade other Cabinet Ministers to let him off the hook. That demonstrates that anyone who comes to this issue with a fresh mind is bound rapidly to come to the conclusion—as the Secretary of State did — that the social fund is a lunatic inheritance from his predecessor and that, in the interests of social security claimants, it should be ditched.
Unfortunately, the Secretary of State was unsuccessful in his attempts to rid himself of the social fund, and we find ourselves debating another batch of Government amendments to the social fund, which remains the most objectionable feature — among many — of the Social Security Act 1986. The main result of the social fund is to replace the present system of single payments to claimants with a system of loans that will be repaid by deductions from benefits. Those benefits are calculated and approved by Parliament to provide for a subsistence level of income. However, after such deductions, claimants will be left to survive on income that, by definition, will be below subsistence level.
The previous Secretary of State—granted the present Secretary of State has not made an attempt yet —


described the new arrangement as a banking facility for social security claimants. It will certainly resemble some banks because I understand that, in those social security offices where special rooms will be set aside for social fund interviews, floor to ceiling security screens are being installed to protect the staff from the claimants' frustrations as they try to wrestle with the ins and outs of the social fund.
In the next fortnight the House will have the opportunity to debate the social fund as a result of the three orders that will be before the House. In the meantime, we wish to propose two amendments to the Bill that would remove two of the gravest defects of the proposed social fund. Amendment No. 23 would curb some of the limitless discretion available to the Secretary of State under present legislation. The amendment achieves that by subjecting the grants for community care and the loans for exceptional needs to the same regime of prescription that the schedule provides for cold weather payments.
8.45 pm
It is worth pausing to note that, although we refer to the structure as a single social fund, it is rapidly splitting into two separate funds. On the one hand, there will be a fund out of which payments will be made for maternity grants, funeral grants and severe weather payments. Those payments will be made as of legal right and as an entitlement to the claimant. On the other hand, the payments for the community care grant and exceptional needs loans will be paid at the discretion of the social fund officer.
There are other contrasts that should concern Parliament. The former fund will be regulated by parliamentary instrument, whereas the latter will be controlled simply by guidance issued by the Secretary of State. There will be no parliamentary scrutiny of that guidance. As yet, we have had no opportunity to debate the social fund guidance manual.
From the claimant's point of view, there are even more stark contrasts. Payments out of the first fund for maternity grant, funeral grant and severe weather payments are subject to appeal. They are paid as a legal right, so there are grounds for appeal. The claimant may pursue that appeal through the DHSS, through the tribunals, through the commissioners and through the Court of Appeal if he feels aggrieved. However, the claimant who is refused the exceptional needs loan has no right of appeal. The decision made in the room on the other side of the security screen is final and there is no opportunity for redress. No wonder it is felt that it would be safer to announce that final decision from behind the safety of a metal grille. Our amendment would put both funds on the same footing so that we would have one genuine, integrated social fund.
I wish to deal with another area of sharp contrast that leads me to the other amendment. Perhaps the greatest contrast of all between the two funds is that the claimant seeking a maternity grant, funeral grant or severe weather payment must be paid if he or she can establish a legal right. However, the claimant who turns up looking for a community grant or an exceptional needs loan need not be paid. Indeed, that claimant can be paid only if the money has not run out. He or she is applying for a payment from a cash-limited fund and the limits on that fund may well have run out by the time of application.
We understand that the DHSS, with prudence and perhaps forethought, has prepared a computer programme for distribution to DHSS officers to control their allocations from the fund. Unfortunately, when I last heard, the software was not up and running. Understandably, DHSS officers are worried about what they will do with their computers on 1 April without the software. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will consider that problem.
Assuming that the process of monthly budgeting works, it will mean that, in week one or week two, those who claim in those weeks might succeed in getting a payment if they manage to get on the right side of the social fund officer on the other side of the grille. However, if they turn up in week three they are liable to be told that the month's budget is getting dangerously low and that they are being refused. It will not be that they are not entitled or that they do not come within the scope of the guidance manual, but that the money just is not there.
We know how things work regarding public expenditure, and it may be that when the same claimant: goes back in week four he may encounter a different attitude. The social fund officer may be anxious to meet his month norm and to dispose of his monthly budget, so it is possible that he would be more generous than he was a week before. I predict that, rapidly, all round Britain, welfare officers and social work departments will learn what is the best day of the month on which to send a claimant along to apply for a loan from a social fund.
This is bizarre. But what makes that rather outrageous procedure not entertaining, but deeply tragic, is that we now have the figures for what the cash limits will be. The most dramatic development since Second Reading in terms of the social fund is that we now have deposited in the Library what the allocation will be to every local DHSS office. We now know the figures, and they are horrendous. As many hon. Members will know, I have done some work on allocating to constituencies not just the allocation for the social fund expenditure next year, but the actual expenditure on single payments by the same office in 1986–87. Therefore, we can compare what was available to claimants on an outturn basis for last year with', what will be available for the same purpose through the social fund next year. The results are alarming.
When we first saw the figures, the biggest cut was allocated to Glasgow, Provan, which was to receive only 22 per cent. of its total expenditure in 1986–87. I understand that that cut was so enormous that the Government have withdrawn those figures and announced that there was an error in the calculation, which they will amend. For the sake of Provan I am glad that that step has been taken, but it leaves me in a particularly invidious position because the DHSS office which now enjoys the unfortunate distinction of having the biggest cut is Bathgate in West Lothian, which serves my constituency. In 1986–87 it spent £2,250,000 on single payments; for 1988–89 its allocation under the social fund is £750,000 —one third of last year's expenditure.
I shall pursue the constituency point to which this gives rise elsewhere and content myself on this occasion by noting only that West Lothian is one of the half dozen travel-to-work areas in central Scotland with the highest rate of male unemployment and that my constituency, including as it does a young new town, is one of the half dozen constituencies in Scotland with the largest number of single parents. There is no conceivable index of poverty,


deprivation and social need by which one could single out Bathgate and Livingston for the largest cut in payment to social security claimants anywhere in Britain. Why us?
We are comforted, in so far as it is possible to find consolation in these circumstances, by the fact that we are almost not alone. We have ranked all the local offices by the size of cut and we find that there are just over 20 local offices facing a cut in expenditure which brings them down to half the level of spending of 1986–87. Those 20 local offices read like a roll-call of the areas of greatest deprivation and poverty in Britain. Let me share with the House the names of some those local offices.
First comes Bathgate and then Bloomsbury — the local office in central London which deals with most of the bed-and-breakfast cases of the homeless who are camped in Camden and one of the areas of most intense pressure on the DHSS system. The third area, for some curious reason, is the New Forest. It sticks out like a sore thumb, and I cannot explain why it has found its way on to the list of multiple deprivation. My only possible explanation is that it may be well known in the DHSS that the spokesman for the official Opposition spends every summer on holiday in the New Forest, and I am sorry if I have visited my blight on the local residents.
Fourth is Cowdenbeath, which covers central Fife—an area with one of the highest unemployment levels in Scotland, and that is saying something. Then comes Leeds, north, Leven—which covers the rest of central Fife—Glasgow, Cranstonhill, Dundee east, Kilmarnock, the Oval—the other central London office with the largest pressure on it — Thames south, Glasgow Anniesland, Glasgow Maryhill, Leeds south, Chester-le-Street, Abertillery, Edinburgh east, Sunderland south and Middlesbrough. All those offices are having their expenditure cut by half.
One can compare and contrast that list of the areas of multiple deprivation with the 20-odd local offices which do best out of the allocation. There are just over 20 which manage to receive over 80 per cent. of last year's expenditure. These are the local offices that face the smallest cuts and in half a dozen cases an actual increase over last year's expenditure. Where are they? They are Eastbourne, Folkestone, Lewes—Lewes receives 80 percent. of last year's expenditure, whereas all the others receive more—Worthing, Guildford— that well-known black spot of unemployment — Bournemouth, Weymouth, Ipswich, Hove, Skegness and Epsom. I cannot conceive of what index of social deprivation would qualify Epsom as being one of the areas for the highest allocation for any social security budget.
The list continues with the Isle of Wight, Thanet, Exeter and—now we come to it—the local office in the whole of Britain which receives the best allocation of all from the social fund and which is singled out for the most favourable treatment and the most generous allocation —Bognor Regis. Next year Bognor Regis will get two thirds more for expenditure than it spent last year, while Bathgate will receive two thirds less. Bognor Regis is in the

Arundel division. I do not know what level of multiple deprivation may be found in Arundel, but it has a 19,000 Conservative majority. I checked it in the list ranking constituencies by unemployment and discovered that it was almost 500th. Why Bognor Regis?
I observe that the Under-Secretary of State has released two pages which explain how the calculation was done to enable the allocation to be carried out. I note from the calculations that six sevenths of the formula relate to the historic spending pattern, but one seventh relates to what the Department expects to happen over the coming year. Whether that means that the Department expects major factory closures in Bognor Regis, I do not know. We should be told. I find it impossible to reconcile these figures with either the previous spending pattern of those local offices or any objective measure of social need in Bognor Regis and Bathgate.
So far I have dealt gently with the Government. I have compared the expenditure on single payments last year with the total allocation of the social fund to those offices for next year. But it would be possible to make a more accurate and restricted comparison. The single payments that were paid out in 1986·87 were grants and were not repayable. Most payments out of the social fund will be loans. Indeed, of the £200 million budget, £140 million will be loans and only £60 million will be grants. That £140 million of loans is not new money; it will come out of the pockets of the claimants who will have to repay it.
It is therefore possible to sharpen the contrast and say that it is really between the expenditure on single payments last year and the allocation for grants from the social fund for next year. Let us take some of our major cities and examine what happens if we make that comparison.
Birmingham contains the constituency with the highest unemployment in Britain—that of the deputy leader of the Labour party, my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). Last year, it received £12·5 million for expenditure on single payments. Next year, it will receive barely £2 million in grants through the social fund—a reduction to 17 per cent. of the previous level of expenditure. That is a fair comparison. It means that £10 million is being taken out of Birmingham's local economy, which is a loss of
9 pm
I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, South (Ms. Primarolo) is present. She will be interested to know that last year Bristol received £2·75 million in single payments. Next year, it will be allocated barely £500,000 in expenditure grants—a reduction to 19 per cent. of the previous year's expenditure. I notice that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Rutherglen (Mr. McAvoy) is in his place. Last year, Glasgow spent £26 million in single payments; next year it will get not quite £4 million for expenditure on grants under the social fund — a reduction to 15 per cent. Knowing, as he does, the appalling need and poverty of Glasgow, I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Rutherglen, or any other hon. Member, could stand up and say that Glasgow was a suitable candidate for that sharp loss of purchasing power of more than £20 million in the local economy.
Liverpool faces a reduction from more than £8 million to £1·5 million — a reduction to 18 per cent. Manchester's allocation will fall from £6·5 million to barely £1 million — again, a reduction to 18 per cent. How is it possible to justify these figures? I must admit that


all the scepticism that we expressed about the social fund has been not only vindicated, but outdone by events. In retrospect, my hon. Friends and I were trusting and naive in being reluctant to believe that the position could be quite as bad as the figures show it to be.
There is a good reason why Parliament challenged the absolute right of the Crown in the 17th century. It is the same reason why, ever since, Parliament has been reluctant to give any Government absolute discretion that is not tempered by regulation. It is that absolute discretion quickly leads to arbitrary power. I choose my words with care. There is no objective arithmetical way in which one can explain the distribution and allocation that I have outlined to the House. The only possible reason for the ludicrously lopsided allocation is deliberate political bias. It represents the Government's use of unfettered power to reward their own and to penalise ours. The way in which that unfettered power had been manipulated is a scandal and an outrage, and shows that the Government are not to he trusted. Therefore, we shall vote for the amendments, which will provide some restrictions on that unfettered power.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: The intention behind my amendment is to give the Secretary of State power to provide extra expenses to enable people at risk from severe weather to protect themselves.
I was glad to see that cold, weather payments are now to have a proper budget. However, I am extremely concerned that the abolition of single payments and their replacement with discretionary loans will cause considerable hardship to people who are already in grave danger at times when we experience exceptionally cold weather like last year's. This particularly affects elderly people, the chronically sick and disabled and very young children, who are accepted as being at risk from severe weather. Such people are already eligible for severe weather payments if they are in receipt of income supplement, but without single payments to provide essential equipment to fight the cold, many people's lives will be put at risk.
The Child Poverty Action Group has told me of a case that provides an excellent example of how the changes could put life at risk and of how my amendment could prevent that. It is that of a single parent, living on supplementary benefit and supporting a child under two years of age. She was moved from partly furnished to unfurnished accommodation because her previous flat was too small. The flat-rate grant was not enough to provide carpets and curtains for the flat. As a result, the health of her small child was at considerable risk from the cold. My amendment would give the Secretary of State the power to intervene and provide extra payments so that that single parent could live without the dangers caused by severe weather.
As well as payments for essential articles for fighting the cold, such as carpets and curtains—many of us do not consider them in that light — payments could also cover grants for blankets and mattresses. More important, grants could provide long-term protection from the cold for those at risk such as the very young, the elderly and the chronically sick. Payments could be utilised to insulate their homes, especially if they are in hard-to-heat homes in areas where they do not qualify for an energy grant. Payments could be made for draughtproofing, hot water cylinder jackets and repairs to defective appliances. Grants

could also be provided to help those in need with reconnection charges in an emergency. Many such emergencies occurred last year.
The abolition of single payments will cause considerable problems and put at special risk the poorest and most vulnerable people in our society during exceptionally cold weather.

Mr. Burns: In the light of the fairly dramatic new policies that are coming from whatever name the hon. Gentleman's party now calls itself, can he give the House a categorical assurance that, in addition to wanting to put VAT on food, children's clothes and newspapers, for the next 24 hours his party will not want to put VAT on fuel bills?

Mr. Fearn: If the hon. Gentleman has read some of the statements that appeared in the press—some of them erroneous — and has watched television, he will have found that the statements made were not party statements, but a leader's statements.

Mr. Robin Cook: In that case, one should clarify to the House that the apostrophe comes after the "s" of leaders' and not before it, and that there are two leaders to choose from. The document is signed by both of them. The areas to which they propose to extend VAT include food, children's clothing, newspapers and domestic fuel. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) is therefore correct in asking for an assurance.

Mr. Fearn: I shall continue with my speech. My amendment would enable the Secretary of State to relieve hardship and to protect lives. However, as the point is covered by another amendment and I see that it is also within amendment Nos. 23 and 28, I shall not press my amendment.

Mrs. Alice Mahon: I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) on his remarks about the social fund. It is with some sadness that I speak in support of the amendment because Conservative Members should know and Opposition Members certainly know that we should be talking about a huge increase in benefits. My hon. Friend the Member for Livingston was a little too kind to the Minister, to the Secretary of State and indeed to Conservative Members. For weeks I listened to debates in Committee about these benefits and about the horrendous cuts that will be implemented in April. I was shocked yesterday to hear Conservative Members accuse my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) of being emotional. I thought that I was shockproof until I heard what was said in Committee.
I made many notes of the things that the Secretary of State said in answer to vital questions about how people will live from April in the light of some of these cuts and started to consider some of the people who devised this dreadful piece of legislation. One can see where they come from by looking at the Poor Law Amendment Act 1834. Then, as now, some people thought that others should not get sufficient to live on because the principle in that Act was that if they were given as little as possible they would be forced into low-paid jobs. That is part of the Government's strategy.
When I asked the Minister how children live when they leave care and asked for solutions for this or that group of claimants, he gave benign answers of sympathy, such as, "We have listened to the hon. Lady, but"— we always


had a "but" at the end. Tht is why my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston has been too kind to Government Members. I have looked into the hearts of those Conservative Members on the Committee and what I saw filled me with a cold chill, because they do not care. That is the crux of the matter. The social fund epitomises everything that went on in Committee. This is the removal of the safety net of the welfare state. Let nobody be in any doubt about that. The consensus has gone.
Over Christmas I went to various groups to meet the claimants—nursery groups and family centres. I met the men and women who use those centres, who are struggling to bring up families on benefits or on very low incomes. I have the dubious honour of representing the constituency with the lowest pay in the country, so I know what I am talking about when I talk about poverty.
I wish to quote some of the comments of those people. One person said:
The Prime Minister can come round to my house any time. I defy her to show me how I can economise more than I am doing already. Can you tell me how to feed, clothe and care for two children and myself on £25 a week? I have a pound left in my purse. I don't know what we are going to eat for tea.
The women I spoke to, and occasionally a man, are bringing up children on benefits. One or two are on very low incomes, which is what I believe the Government want to force people into. The people feel forgotten. They told me that they are struggling to keep a decent life for themselves and their families. They hate having to live on the means-tested benefit; they do not want it.
I am glad I was not in the House when a Conservative Member referred to youngsters as being idle and not wanting to get out of bed. That is the most gross insult I can think of. During my fact-finding mission I talked to youngsters, and many of them are living on peanuts. Conservative Members could not feed themselves for even half a day on some of the incomes I am talking about.
The people I spoke to were particularly concerned about what will happen to young people when the social fund comes in. My local press ran the most heartbreaking story the week before Christmas. There was a very poignant picture of a 17-year-old woman who wrote a letter to the paper saying:
Can anybody help me? I live in a maisonette, I have been in it since 6th December. People have helped, but I have no bed, cooker or carpet. I have borrowed a bed. I have a baby due in February and as yet social security has not been able to help me.
We all know that the payment of single benefits was removed, and she was caught in the trap.
Until now I have been living on £18·75 a week. When the baby comes, how will I boil milk? I live on chips or anything that I can get. I come from a one-parent family and will soon be one myself. Do you think Bob Geldof can help me?
I felt like writing back and saying, "Yes, because the Government will not." That young woman got help because she publicised her plight. My local press are not supporters of the Labour party. I suffer, as do many Labour Members, because often their values are not my values, and sometimes they come out in support of the new breed of 19th-century liberals who are governing us. Yet the paper said:
What happened to Nicola Sykes? The pregnant teenager who spent Christmas alone without money or comfort in an empty council flat is not an isolated case. For every Nicola

there are doubtless many, many others. While Nicola's needs are being met temporarily, this is going to get much worse in April 1988.
It went on:
We have no confidence that things will get better for this group of people or that the voluntary sector can cope.
In fact, the voluntary sector is now being swamped and is going under.
9.15 pm
I want to return to the point that I made earlier and consider the thinking the Government and the Conservative Members who served on the Committee. The simple fact is—I emphasise this to my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston, who let the Government off the hook a little at first—thatthe Government do not care. When I asked the Prime Minister during Question Time why we have the highest infant mortality rate and why we are going in the opposite direction to our European colleagues, she replied that she did not know. The Government do not know and Conservative Members do not know. I could forgive that, but I have listened to the Government for weeks and the simple truth is that they do not care.
Tonight's little demonstration may have alarmed and offended the sensitivities of Conservative Members because there was noise. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) is shaking his head and no doubt he will have a chance to speak later. Indeed, it will be a welcome relief to hear from him because he sat in silence earlier and many times during those weeks in Committee I wondered whether we had the deaf and dumb brigade from the Government with us because Conservative Members were not willing to speak. If Conservative Members were impressed by that anger tonight, they must be aware that they are storing up even more anger. I have spoken to the young people and I can tell the Government that they will pay for that anger.
We have a divided Britain, and the social fund will divide it even further. Conservative Members will be just as swamped in their constituencies with people coming to them as I will be in mine. Conservative Members will not get away with this. The anger will manifest itself in forms which Conservative Members will dislike.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), who has just come into the Chamber, finds this highly amusing. There is nothing amusing about poverty. We noticed that attitude in Committee. While we spoke about people trying to maintain decent levels of benefit, Conservative Members sat in Committee smiling, writing Christmas cards and passing each other little notes. That was disgraceful behaviour and it reflects what the Government have done by introducing the social fund. The whole country will pay for the devastation that this rotten legislation will produce.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Government amendments Nos. 43 and 44, dealt with debts being collected from people in Northern Ireland. I want to share the concerns of my colleagues and others in Northern Ireland about the implications of the social fund.
The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) propounded the theory that the social fund would help Conservative constituencies. If that is so, it is amazing that in Northern Ireland, if my memory is correct, the percentage social fund allocation to the office in Ballymena is the largest of all. Very few people would


contend that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. I. Paisley) is a noted supporter of the Government. However, this point highlights the real problem. There does not seem to be any rhyme or reason behind the allocation of the fund.
I want to speak for a few moments on behalf of an area that is recognised by most people to be remarkably deprived in terms of basic wages. Indeed, the region has the highest rates for housekeeping, fuel and grocery expenses. Some people wonder where the funds will come from in the future. We are still waiting for details about the social fund, although a Northern Ireland Minister gave us some information a short time ago. In most areas at least £1 million will be taken out of the purchasing economy. It is a matter not just of the recipients suffering, but of the ongoing impact on a community. Before the fund is implemented, I ask that deeper consideration be given to it. I support the concept of the amendment, which should be obligatory on the Secretary of State rather than permissive.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: I apologise to the House for not being here for the start of the debate on these amendments, but I assure the House that I was present throughout the Committee stage of the Bill, and, that of its predecessor, which was just as awful. I find it interesting to note the number of Tory Members who have gained a tongue since they came down from the Committee Corridor. Perhaps the air up there is too rarefied for them to be able to speak, and perhaps the Services Committee could attend to that. It is incredible that a major piece of social vandalism is to be visited upon the people of this country, yet not one Tory Member has a word to say about it, other than to parrot what the Minister tells him to parrot in Committee.
The people in my community will face many problems because of the introduction of the social fund. The hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. M. Smyth) mentioned the loss of £1 million in his community. I deplore that—it is appalling— but I wish that we were losing only £1 million from our community. There is something deeply offensive, unpleasant and unfair about the social fund. It is unfair because it takes away the right of people to gain a benefit, a single payment, and hands it over to the discretionary power of the Minister.
The Minister can hide. He will not be sitting at a counter in the Archway Tower, with a piece of plate glass between himself and applicants for social fund benefit, telling them no and watching their anger as they suddenly discover that what they could get as a right is now a discretionary matter. The Minister will be hiding away in his plush office at the Elephant and Castle. A poor, low-paid civil servant will have to face the ire of those who have lost their benefits because of the social fund.
What is even more evil about this measure is that there is no appeal against these arbitrary decisions. Applicants will go to the DHSS, desperate to get help which, at the moment, is available, and will be told, "No, the money has run out this month. Come back next month." The money will have run out again and they will be told to come back the following month. They will be at the end of a vicious queue, or they will be offered something through the loan fund. We are not even certain how the loan fund will operate, because the Minister was remarkably coy about that.
If the amendments are carried this evening — I sincerely hope that they will be, although I have my doubts —they will serve to put some semblance of fairness and order into this part of the Bill. The Minister may grin and say, "Oh, well, here the Labour party goes again, moaning about social security. Soon it will all be over and I can forget about it." I am happy to tell the Minister and the House that that is not the case because the anger and chaos are only just beginning. Pent-up frustrations will boil over on 1 April, or some time during April, when the first office runs out of its social fund grant money or when loans are refused and people suffer because the social fund is cut for the succeeding year when others cannot afford to pay back the money.
All sorts of action will be taken, but what makes me angry is the complacency and arrogance with which the Government have introduced these measures and the way in which Ministers will sit back and leave it to a dispute' between local civil servants, who do not want to implement this horrible system, and local people in poor communities who do not want the system. They merely want to live with some decency and self-respect. The poverty in which they live has been visited upon them by the economic policies of a Government who do not care about these people.
It is not those people's fault. Like my hon. Friends, I want to see a social security system which will not allow a Minister to have discretion over the amount of money that he does not give to a poor inner-city area and a system which will not put low-level civil servants in the awful position of having to decide who gets that money. We want a guarantee of basic living standards and incomes for everyone in this country, which, as the seventh richest country in the world, could easily afford it.
The Government do not want to spend money on that. They do not care about poor people. They would rather give away the money in tax relief so that the very rich can build their swimming pools and buy their BMWs and their homes abroad. They would rather spend it on nuclear weapons than on the poorest people, who are desperately crying out for help.

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) is worried about payments during exceptionally cold weather. He will be pleased to see that, next winter, the social fund will continue to make exceptionally cold weather payments. Although the supplementary benefits system will end, and with it the single payments system, there will continue to be exceptionally cold weather payments.
I remind the hon. Gentleman of a couple of points about the social fund which may go some way towards meeting his anxieties. He mentioned the problem of meeting the expenses of reconnection. The fuel direct scheme exists for consumers of electricity and gas. If they are in the vulnerable groups, they will be covered by the code of practice on winter disconnections. Budgeting loans will be available under the social fund to help people with their bills for the fuels that cannot be covered by the fuel direct scheme, including coal, oil and bottled gas. In some cases, community care grants — not loans — will be available for reconnection, depending upon the status of the applicant. In other cases, budgeting loans will be available for that purpose. Crisis loans may be available too, to avoid danger or damage to the health and safety of someone in the family.
I do not suggest that we accept the hon. Gentleman's amendment. I simply remind him that something like the exceptionally cold weather scheme will exist next winter, in the light of our experience this winter, and that those payments will not be made from the budgeted part of the social fund. I hope that that will be of interest and comfort to him.
We are speaking against the background of the total reform of the income-related social security benefits system. As part of that reform, an extra £200 million will be put into the money that is available for families. An important part of the reform is the fact that, in future, claimants will not be dependent upon bits and pieces of additional money which they can build up. Their needs will be addressed through premiums which are relevant to their circumstances. There will be premiums for families, for the disabled and for the elderly. We must look for the best way of enabling people to meet unusual and sometimes fairly large needs, and we believe that the social fund will fill the gap.
The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said that there were two social funds. There is only one social fund, but it is useful to think of it as being in two parts — budgeted and non-budgeted. But I did not understand the hon. Gentleman's point. He should have welcomed the fact that maternity, funeral and exceptionally cold weather payments will not be limited by the budget, but will be determined by the demand for them.
The hon. Gentleman and several other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), made great play of the fact that there would be no redress under the new system. I wearied the Committee by explaining the system of review that would be instituted. First, the social fund officer could review the case. It could be reviewed by his line manager in the local office, or by the social fund inspector. Sitting above all that will be the social fund commissioner responsible for ensuring the quality of the decisions of social fund inspectors.
Although I mentioned this several times in Committee, I do not think that I have reminded the House that, during the passage of the Social Security Bill in July 1986, Lord Denning said in another place that his experience of appeals that had come to his court was that the machinery was far too long, elaborate and costly, with
too many insurance commissioners and the like.
He added:
It is all very well to have that elaborate structure in the pursuit of justice, but if it is too elaborate, it ought to be replaced by simpler machinery … I see this new proposal coming from the Commons as being simple, fair and just machinery." — [Official Report. House of Lords 24 July 1986; Vol. 479, c. 426.]
The hon. Member for Livingston also raised a point about computers. The software programme is on target for helping the social fund officers to run the social fund budget, and computer training will be given next week. I wearied the Committee by explaining that the money would not run out, and I seem to have half succeeded with the hon. Member for Livingston. He now understands that it will not run out halfway through the year, and thinks that it will run out halfway through each month. That will not happen. We have a programme so that social fund officers can be aware of the priorities placed on the budget,

establish their system of priorities and deal with the budget accordingly. That is not a very unusual procedure. Most people in this world have to operate within budgets.

Mr. Corbyn: Will the Minister tell us how he can ensure that the system of priorities will be consistent from one office to another, and that different decisions will not be made in different offices to fit within the cash limits of the social fund?

Mr. Portillo: The hon. Gentleman, who was an assiduous member of the Committee, will have observed that there is a thick social fund manual, which gives guidance. The social fund officer therefore has at his disposal both directions from the Secretary of State and considerable guidance to help him to make his decisions.
In certain circumstances, the officer will be able to hold a claim for up to 28 days, so that he can compare it with other claims coming in over the same period which he thinks may have similar priorities.

Mrs. Mahon: Will the Minister explain what will happen in one of the cases that I mentioned tonight? What will happen to a woman with two or three children if her cooker blows up and the officer holds the claim for 28 days? What if it is in the middle of winter and she cannot produce any warm food?

Mr. Portillo: I am disappointed in the hon. Lady, who was also a member of the Committee. She will know that cookers, and mothers with children, are at the top of the list of the social fund officer's priorities.

Mrs. Mahon: I spent some time talking to my welfare rights benefit campaign organiser in Halifax, who assured me—as did the citizens advice bureau organiser—that the first pay claimants on the community grant would be people without homes and people coming out of care, and that the whole grant would be taken up by those high-priority groups. They suspected that nothing would be left for the other cases that the Minister has mentioned.

Mr. Portillo: I can only reiterate that an applicant for a social fund loan who is in the position that the hon. Lady describes will be given high priority.

Mr. Robin Cook: Some time ago the Minister committed himself to an important proposition. He said that the social fund would not run out. He will realise that it is a cash-limited fund. Is he willing to give the House an assurance that he is confident that all priority cases popping up on the computer programme will be met, and that no applicant will be turned away because the funds are not there to meet his case?

Mr. Portillo: Of course I am not saying that. I am saying that the highest priority cases will be met. What I have been trying to get across to the hon. Gentleman is that there is no magic day of the month—the 11th, the 15th or the 28th—when the money will run out, because the social fund officers will manage the fund in such a way as to meet the priorities across every month of the year. They will be able to do that because they have experience of single payments. Some £118 million was spent on single payments to 17 November 1987. That puts us on course for spending about £190 million on single payments in the year. That figure compares with the £203 million being


made available under the social fund. Perhaps another valid point is the fact that the £203 million is in addition to about £8 billion being spent on supplementary benefit.

Mr. Corbyn: I realise that the Minister is trying hard to put a thick coat of gloss paint over this nasty piece of the Bill, but he has not answered the question. The manual advises social fund officers what priority they should accord to cases that appear at their offices. He has not said how he can ensure that an applicant in Halifax is likely to get the same payment as one in Bognor Regis in any month of the year. It seems clear to many of us who have sat through the Committee stage and looked through the social fund manual that there is no mechanism 4— and that none is intended — to ensure equity of decisions throughout the country.

Mr. Portillo: I shall return to what the hon. Gentleman said about allocations, but he will know how we have striven to achieve balance and fairness between offices. He is trying to achieve something that is unobtainable. It is impossible to ensure that the chances of securing a council house in Islington are the same as in Hackney. Even under the single payment system one cannot ensure that outgoings are always the same, because there will always be grey cases which are treated differently. We have produced a thick social fund manual which gives clear guidance to social fund officers, which will go a long way to ensure that like cases are treated alike.

Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister gave the figures to November. I am not sure what happens in Great Britain, but it is alleged, and the figures that I have seen confirm it, that in Northern Ireland — there is no Northern Ireland Minister here to answer my question—between April and November 1987 a different pattern was introduced for single payments, which has reduced the amount given to bring it into line with the new figures. Can the Minister give us the total of payments for the previous full year so that we may compare that figure with the social fund provisions?

Mr. Portillo: I think that the hon. Gentleman is referring to the changes in the single payment regime made in August 1986. The cost in 1985–86 was £335 million.
The allocation that is being made is such as to be broadly in line with the amount spent on single payments in the current year. I shall take the example that the hon. Member for Livingston gave—Glasgow, Provan—where the allocation for the social fund is £1·5 million, compared with expenditure on single payments from April to December 1987 of £1 million. There is little difference between the amount being made available and what was paid out in the last period for which figures are available. I regret that I do not have the figures for Bathgate, but I imagine that the picture is similar.

Mrs. Wise: Is the Minister saying that money for grants is the same as money for loans?

Mr. Portillo: I think that the hon. Lady heard me. The amount of money being made available for the budgeted element of the social fund, which is loans and grants together, is higher than the amount being paid at the moment in single payments.
The allocation between the offices was mathematically determined. It was based on the 32 weeks to April 1987. We then made some adjustment to that. The reason for what is only a limited adjustment was that we could not

see any reason why single payments varied so much from one office to another. We felt that it would not be right to base the allocation of the social fund entirely on the history of single payments, and that we should also take some account of the measure of underlying need. Because we did not want to force the pace of any change, the extent to which we allowed for that underlying need was very limited. The formula was made up of one seventh on the basis of need and six sevenths on the basis of the single payments made by an office over a recent period.
I stress to the hon. Member for Livingston that there is no estimate of what will happen in the future. I am not very clear where he picked that up. We put a note in the Library explaining the one seventh-six sevenths split; that is, between need—one seventh—and single payments—six sevenths. There is no guess what will happen in the future. We wanted to know the best possible indication of need and we took advice from the Social Policy Research Unit. We were told that the best possible measure was the supplementary benefit case load.
If the hon. Member for Livingston is saying that we should have regard only to what single payments have been in the past and pay no regard to the underlying need, that we should have no regard to how many in an area receive supplementary benefit, or the make-up of those people, as between elderly, disabled and so forth, I am very surprised at what he says. I want to say very firmly that it is absolutely untrue that there has been any connivance or manipulation of these figures. We have gone to the trouble of placing in the Library the exact method by which the calculation was made. The hon. Gentleman — I am sorry to say this to him—does not seem to have gone to the trouble of reading it carefully, because he seems to have misunderstood one crucial point.
I am pleased that the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. M. Smyth) recognised that there was no political bias in this, and he gave an example of the way in which the matter has been worked out. The hon. Member for Livingston can take the piece of paper placed in the Library, do the figures himself and apply the formula, and he will find that it is exactly as I have said. If he is saying that just because in one area the level of single payments has run at a particular level, for no reason which he or I can explain, and is not related to any recognised measure of underlying need, and that we should have no regard to the supplementary benefit case load, I am very surprised.
I hope that in the course of my remarks I have covered the points that were made in the debate. The social fund has now been debated extensively in Committee and, before that, during the passage of the Bill which is now the Social Security Act 1986. It is now time to get on with implementing the social fund and, in view of what I have said about the relative budgets of the single payment system and the social fund, we have every reason to believe that this will be a very successful scheme.

Mr. Robin Cook: The Minister said that the purpose of the reform of social security introduced in 1986, which will be fully in place by this April, was to do away with the extra additions to pay to those claiming welfare benefits. In the context of this debate, of course, never was a truer word spoken. Under the social fund, not only will there be no additions; for the first time there will be compulsory deductions of benefit when people repay those loans. I am aware of a certain ambivalence on my part in this debate in that I am pressing the Minister for a larger ceiling to the


social fund, pressing him for a more generous budget so that more claimants can obtain money from the fund, but at the same time I am gravely concerned about what will happen to even those claimants who succeed in obtaining money from the social fund, because there will be a very serious problem of success in their case in that, in three cases out of four, they will have to repay it. Those who succeed will in many cases be those who end up in worst hardship.
9.45 pm
We come to the biggest irony of all in the new structure — that those who are trapped in greatest hardship, because they are losing £6 a week in automatic deductions, will find when they apply for additional help that they are automatically disqualified because they will be held under the social fund manual not to have sufficient benefit to repay a further loan. Therefore, they will be disqualified from getting a further advance from the social fund. So the very people who will then be in the greatest need will be disqualified from the one available form of assistance that the Government have allowed.
I listened with great care to what the Minister said about the cash-limited fund not running out and in that respect being unique among such funds. As I understood what he told the House, the fund will not run out, because it will be rationed on a day-to-day basis. That is effectively what the Minister said. If the money seems to be inadequate to cope with the numbers coming in, the computer programme will automatically adjust the qualification by shifting the cut-off point further up the list of priorities, with the result that in some offices priority cases will succeed which down the road in a different local office, where there is tighter pressure on the budget, would not succeed.
It is not good enough for the Minister to defend that anomaly by saying that in some areas it has always been possible to get a council house more easily than in other areas. Until the invention of the social fund, there was never any area in Britain in which it was not possible to get one's legal rights to social security because that area did not have the money. Until April 1988, every claimant anywhere in Britain would have been entitled to the same payments under the same regulations without limits on the cash.
The other area where the Minister showed a breathtaking sleight of hand, although I understand that my colleagues became familiar with it in Committee, was in comparing the allocation under the social fund with the single payments expenditure after the cuts of 1986. He discovered that there was no cut and indeed prided himself on having discovered a modest increase. It is ludicrously unreasonable and unmathematical to compare the position after the cuts with the position next year rather than with the position before the Government got to work with the scissors. In 1986–87, expenditure on single payments was well over £300 million. It is that figure that has to be compared with the allocation for social fund payments of £201 million next year.
The cuts were severe. The Minister referred to a mother with children and no cooker being a priority candidate. In my constituency I have a family without a cooker who cannot get a single payment to replace that cooker because under his new rules, announced in 1986, that family will

not qualify for another payment for another 18 months because it got an inadequate payment to purchase a cooker 18 months ago. That cooker has broken down, but no grant will be offered to replace or repair it.
In another case, where there is a seven-year-old who wets the bed, the washing machine has broken down. That mother will not be given a single payment to repair the washing machine because she got a grant 18 months ago to buy it. Therefore, she will have to wait 18 months before she can repair the machine.
Another constituent, an invalid, no longer has a reclining chair because the reclining chair for which she got a single payment last year collapsed. She will not get a grant to repair it for another two years until the three-year period is up. That illustrates the real hardship caused by the cuts of 1986. It is wrong for the Minister to invite us to compare and contrast only what happened after those cuts with the allocation for next year.
Even if we accept that as the base point, I cannot accept that the allocation of that inadequate sum of money has been fairly and evenly done. I cannot conceive that any formula that allows only one seventh for redistributive purposes should have such a ludicrously distorting effect that expenditure in my area will go down by two thirds and that in Bognor Regis will go up by two thirds. That is a massive difference. In fact, if we subtract one from the other we are talking about a difference of 133 per cent. That cannot be explained by a one-seventh element in the formula. It has to be explained by some factor. It may well be that a political bias was not applied after the figures were spewed out from the computer. The political bias may well have been applied when the formula was drawn up.
In no way can the social security system be used as a counter-agency of regional policy to redistribute money from the north and from inner-city areas of deprivation to the south coast of England, giving money to those areas when the Minister is not prepared to give money to local offices in areas of the greatest multiple deprivation.
On any objective analysis, the effect of that allocation is ludicrously unfair and does not match real need. For that reason, Opposition Members will be delighted to vote for the amendment, and in so doing express our disgust and distaste for the social fund. It would be for the convenience of the House to have a reasonable debate on Third Reading, so I shall divide the House on only one amendment. I shall withdraw amendment No. 23, but divide the House on amendment No. 28 which relates to budget allocation, to give myself and my hon. Friends the opportunity to register our contempt, anger and outrage at the scandalous way in which the Government have manipulated matters to penalise our constituents. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Portillo: I beg to move amendment No. 25, in page 17, line 17, at end insert—
'2A. Subsection (3) shall cease to have effect.'

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 29, 31 to 34 and 39 to 42.

Mr. Portillo: The amendments clarify certain provisions which were questioned in Committee. The Committee was concerned about the division between payments from the social fund which were part of the budgeted allocation and those which were not. I commend the amendments to the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 28, in page 17, line 20, after `allocate', insert 'prescribed'.—[Mr. Robin Cook.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 218, Noes 252.

Division No. 135]
[9.55 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Allen, Graham
Foster, Derek


Anderson, Donald
Fraser, John


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Galbraith, Samuel


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Galloway, George


Ashton, Joe
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
George, Bruce


Barron, Kevin
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Battle, John
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Beckett, Margaret
Golding, Mrs Llin


Beggs, Roy
Gordon, Ms Mildred


Bell, Stuart
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Bermingham, Gerald
Grocott, Bruce


Bidwell, Sydney
Harman, Ms Harriet


Blair, Tony
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Blunkett, David
Heffer, Eric S.


Boateng, Paul
Hinchliffe, David


Boyes, Roland
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Bradley, Keith
Holland, Stuart


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Home Robertson, John


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Hood, James


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)


Buchan, Norman
Howells, Geraint


Buckley, George
Hoyle, Doug


Caborn, Richard
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Callaghan, Jim
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Illsley, Eric


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Ingram, Adam


Canavan, Dennis
Janner, Greville


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
John, Brynmor


Clay, Bob
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Clelland, David
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Kilfedder, James


Cohen, Harry
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Coleman, Donald
Kirkwood, Archy


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Lambie, David


Corbett, Robin
Lamond, James


Corbyn, Jeremy
Leadbitter, Ted


Cousins, Jim
Leighton, Ron


Cox, Tom
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)


Crowther, Stan
Lewis, Terry


Cryer, Bob
Litherland, Robert


Cummings, J.
Livingstone, Ken


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Dalyell, Tarn
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Darling, Alistair
Loyden, Eddie


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
McAllion, John


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
McAvoy, Tom


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
McCartney, Ian


Dewar, Donald
Macdonald, Calum


Dixon, Don
McFall, John


Dobson, Frank
McGrady, E. K.


Doran, Frank
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Douglas, Dick
McKelvey, William


Dunnachie, James
McLeish, Henry


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
McNamara, Kevin


Eastham, Ken
McTaggart, Bob


Evans, John (St Helens N)
McWilliam, John


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Madden, Max


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Fearn, Ronald
Marek, Dr John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Flannery, Martin
Martin, Michael (Springburn)


Flynn, Paul
Martlew, Eric





Maxton, John
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Meacher, Michael
Salmond, Alex


Meale, Alan
Sheerman, Barry


Michael, Alun
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Short, Clare


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Skinner, Dennis


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Morgan, Rhodri
Snape, Peter


Morley, Elliott
Soley, Clive


Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)
Spearing, Nigel


Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)
Steinberg, Gerald


Mowlam, Marjorie
Stott, Roger


Mullin, Chris
Strang, Gavin


Murphy, Paul
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Nellist, Dave
Thomas, Dafydd Elis


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


O'Brien, William
Turner, Dennis


O'Neill, Martin
Vaz, Keith


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Wall, Pat


Patchett, Terry
Walley, Ms Joan


Pendry, Tom
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Pike, Peter
Wareing, Robert N.


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Prescott, John
Wigley, Dafydd


Primarolo, Ms Dawn
Williams, Rt Hon A. J.


Quin, Ms Joyce
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Randall, Stuart
Wilson, Brian


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Winnick, David


Reid, John
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Richardson, Ms Jo
Worthington, Anthony


Robertson, George
Wray, James


Robinson, Geoffrey
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Rogers, Allan



Rooker, Jeff
Tellers for the Ayes:


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Ross, William (Londonderry E)
Mr. Frank Cook.


Rowlands, Ted

	

NOES


Allason, Rupert
Burns, Simon


Amess, David
Burt, Alistair


Amos, Alan
Butler, Chris


Ar	buthnot, James
Butterfill, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Carrington, Matthew


Atkins, Robert
Carttiss, Michael


Atkinson, David
Cash, William


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baldry, Tony
Cope, John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Couchman, James


Batiste, Spencer
Cran, James


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bellingham, Henry
Curry, David


Bendall, Vivian
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Day, Stephen


Benyon, W.
Dorrell, Stephen


Bevan, David Gilroy
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Dykes, Hugh


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Fallon, Michael


Body, Sir Richard
Forman, Nigel


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bottomley, Peter
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Gale, Roger


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Bowis, John
Gill, Christopher


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Glyn, Dr Alan


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brazier, Julian
Gow, Ian


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Gower, Sir Raymond


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Browne, John (Winchester)
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Gregory, Conal


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Buck, Sir Antony
Grist, Ian






Ground, Patrick
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Morrison, Sir Charles (Devizes)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Hannam, John
Moss, Malcolm


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Mudd, David


Harris, David
Neale, Gerrard


Hawkins, Christopher
Nelson, Anthony


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Neubert, Michael


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Heddle, John
Nicholls, Patrick


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Page, Richard


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Paice, James


Holt, Richard
Patnick, Irvine


Hordern, Sir Peter
Patten, John (Oxford W)


Howard, Michael
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Portillo, Michael


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Raffan, Keith


Irvine, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jack, Michael
Redwood, John


Jackson, Robert
Renton, Tim


Janman, Timothy
Rhodes James, Robert


Jessel, Toby
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Key, Robert
Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Roe, Mrs Marion


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rost, Peter


Knapman, Roger
Rowe, Andrew


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Rumbold, Mrs Angela


Knowles, Michael
Ryder, Richard


Knox, David
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lang, Ian
Scott, Nicholas


Latham, Michael
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lawrence, Ivan
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shelton, William (Streatham)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Sims, Roger


Lightbown, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lilley, Peter
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Speed, Keith


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lord, Michael
Squire, Robin


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Stanbrook, Ivor


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Steen, Anthony


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stern, Michael


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Stevens, Lewis


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Sumberg, David


Major, Rt Hon John
Summerson, Hugo


Malins, Humfrey
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maples, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Marland, Paul
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Thornton, Malcolm


Maude, Hon Francis
Thurnham, Peter


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Tracey, Richard


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Tredinnick, David


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Trippier, David


Mellor, David
Trotter, Neville


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Twinn, Dr Ian


Miller, Hal
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mills, Iain
Viggers, Peter


Miscampbell, Norman
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Moate, Roger
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Monro, Sir Hector
Waller, Gary


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Ward, John





Wardle, C. (Bexhill)
Winterton, Nicholas


Watts, John
Wolfson, Mark


Wells, Bowen
Wood, Timothy


Wheeler, John
Woodcock, Mike


Whitney, Ray
Yeo, Tim


Widdecombe, Miss Ann
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Wiggin, Jerry



Wilkinson, John
Tellers for the Noes:


Wilshire, David
Mr. Tony Durant and


Winterton, Mrs Ann
Mr. David Maclean.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Social Security Bill and the Income and Corporation Taxes Bill [Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour, and the Motion in the name of Mr. John Wakeham relating to Selection, may be proceeded with, though opposed, until half-past Eleven o'clock, or for one and a half hours after it has been entered upon, whichever is the later.—[Mr. Dorrell.]

Social Security Bill

Bill, as amended, again considered.

Amendments made: No. 29, in page 17, line 21, leave out '("social fund payments")' and insert
'such as are mentioned in subsection (2)(b) above'.

No. 31, in page 17, line 28, leave out 'social fund'.

No. 32, in page 18, line 15, leave out
'for a social fund payment'.

No. 33, in page 18, line 18, leave out
'for a social fund payment'.

No. 34, in page 18, line 21, after 'payment', insert
'such as is mentioned in section 32(2)(b) above'. — [Mr. Portillo.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 4

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Mr. Portillo: I beg to move amendment No. 35, in page 19, line 5, leave out
'219(2) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970'
and insert
'617(2) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988'.
This is a technical amendment that updates the reference to the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970 to take account of the ICTA Bill now in passage through the House.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Portillo: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 22, line 18, at end insert 'of 15 days'.
The amendment has been drafted so that there can be no doubt in anyone's mind that income support paid during a trade dispute is not recoverable after the person involved in the dispute has returned to work.
Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Portillo: I beg to move amendment No. 37, in page 22, line 20, leave out 'the' and insert 'any'.
The amendment ensures that the recovery of the payment referred to when I discussed Government amendment No. 36 shall be recoverable from any prescribed person, employer or claimant, other than the more limited "the prescribed person", and returns us to the wording in the 1986 Act.
Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 38, in page 22, line 20, at end insert—
`21.—(1) In paragraph (c) of subsection (10) of section 53 (overpayments), before "income" there shall be inserted "subject to subsection (10A) below,".

(2) The following subsection shall be inserted after that subsection—
(10A) This section only applies to income support recoverable under section 20(4E) above to the extent specified in section 20(4EA) and (4EB) above.".'.

No. 44, in page 22, line 20, at end insert—

'21. The following subsection shall be inserted after section 29(7)—
(8) Without prejudice to any other method of recovery, amounts recoverable under any enactment having effect in Northern Ireland and corresponding to this section shall be recoverable by deduction from benefits prescribed under subsection (7) above.

22. The following subsection shall be inserted after section 33(8)—
(8A) Without prejudice to any other method of recovery, awards recoverable under Part IV of the Social Security (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 shall be recoverable by deduction from benefits prescribed under subsection (6) above, and subsection (7) and (8) above shall have effect in relation to such awards as they have effect in relation to awards under this Part of this Act.

23. The following subsection shall be inserted after section 53(7)—
(7A) Without prejudice to any other method of recovery, amounts recoverable under any enactment or instrument having effect in Northern Ireland and corresponding to an enactment or instrument mentioned in subsection (7) above shall be recoverable by deduction from benefits prescribed under subsection (7) above.

24. Paragraphs 21 to 23 above shall be deemed to have come into force on 6th April 1987.'.—[Mr. Portillo.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 5

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 39, in page 23, line 44, leave out `(8),' and insert
', subsection (3), in subsection (4), the words "Social fund" and in subsection (8), the words "social fund", in the second place where they occur, and'.

No. 40, in page 23, line 45, column 3, at end insert—
'In section 33(1), the words "social fund".
In section 34(1)(a), the words "social fund", in the second place where they occur.'

No. 41, in page 23, line 51, column 3, at end insert —
'In section 51(2), the words "social fund".
In section 52(6), the words "social fund".
In section 53(10), the words "social fund".

No. 42, in page 23, line 54, column 3, at end insert—
`In section 84(1), the definition of "social fund payment".' —[Mr. Portillo.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Queen's consent having been signified—

Mr. Scott: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am told that the Bill is a short one judged by social security standards, but it has been subject to considerable

discussion in Committee and in the two days that we have spent on Report. Whatever the Opposition may say, the Bill, in essence, is about three things: training, targeting and some element of tidying up social security legislation and putting it on a firmer footing. I do not want to discuss each of those categories in any detail because, in essence, they have been discussed at length in Committee and in the course of the debates on amendments and new clauses on Report. By training I mean the decision to reinforce the guarantee of the offer of a training place to 16 and 17-year-olds. In the Bill we have said that benefit will not be available to those who are neither in education nor in a job and who turn down a training place. I cannot believe that the comments of the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), who represented this as an appalling attack on those in this age group, can be sustained. I cannot believe that any hon. Member would wish to see youngsters of 16 or 17 with the option of a training place turn it down in exchange for idleness and dependence on benefit.
Some hon. Members have characterised this as an element of compulsion, of forcing youngsters on to training schemes, but that is not right. An element of choice remains. If I must put the argument another way, I cannot see why the state should be compelled to pay benefit to those who decline the offer of a training place in those circumstances. The quality of training and the availability of training places will be such that over a period it will be seen that this was a wise, sensible way to protect young people from the dangers of idleness and to offer them real opportunities to acquire skills that will fit them for adult life.
On the question of targeting — I understand that this has become a dirty word for the Opposition — we now spend a vast sum on social security benefit. In the coming year it will be about £48 billion. I cannot believe that any sensible or responsible Administration should do other than seek to ensure that that money is directed to meeting needs as accurately and in as well targeted a way as possible. We are seeking to do that with some of these measures.
By putting the exceptionally cold weather payments on to a regulated basis, and by providing a statutory basis for local authority emergency payments and for the future of the welfare food scheme, we are also seeking to tidy up existing social security legislation.
I wish to touch on only two further matters before conclude. This may be a unique occasion, in that l wish to compliment the hon. Members for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) and for Preston (Mrs. Wise) and others, although I do not see the hon. Gentleman in his place, on pursuing in Committee with insistence and vigour the cause of the under-twos on attendance allowance. But for the way in which they pursued that issue, I would not have been moved to return to the medical evidence as I did. Because of that, yesterday I could give the House the undertaking about the need to review this whole matter in the context of the OPCS reports and the outcome of the survey on community care by Sir Roy Griffiths. I freely admit that I started by accepting the received wisdom about the dividing line at the age of two, but the Committee moved me to query that and it will be to the benefit of children under the age of two who suffer severe disability.
In Committee, Opposition Front-Bench Members, and particularly the hon. Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), asked about the small group of severely disabled


people who come on to benefit after April and who will be less well treated than those who are at present on benefit. I had hoped that by Third Reading I would be able to come forward with specific proposals to meet their needs. If by any chance it were necessary for legislative provision to be made for this small group, I am satisfied that existing legislative powers would enable me to meet those needs.
As I said at Question Time yesterday, at present I am pursuing a solution that will depend on the voluntary sector. A small number of people are involved, and when we have the OPCS and Griffiths reports we will be able to consider a long-term solution. This will be a short-term solution for a small number of people, and it needs to be addressed in a flexible way. Perhaps the voluntary sector might be the most appropriate way of helping them. In this area, too, during the Committee and remaining stages of the Bill we have made some progress towards meeting the needs of an important group of people who are in need of extra help.
I was urged by one of my hon. Friends to find a solution for all time to a particular aspect of social security. I suspect that members of the Opposition Front Bench realise that we are likely to be back with more social security legislation in the not-too-distant future. Nothing is for ever in this area: we are spending the Government's largest single budget on it, and it would be foolish to think that one could fossilise the provision that is made. We shall constantly be trying to improve our provision and to target it better in the interests of those who are most in need of help in our community. I believe that the Bill is an important step forward in the three directions that I have identified, and I commend it to the House.

Mrs. Beckett: I listened with interest to the Minister's argument and his description of the Bill's aims as being those of training, targeting and tidying up. What a pity that every one of those categories means less provision for the people covered by the Bill.
By the standards of this Administration, this is not a major social security Bill. We are not dealing here with millions of losers, nor are we discussing losses and savings of millions of pounds. However, the Bill is part of the Government's drive, as the Minister plainly said, to target help—in the Government's phrase—on those in greatest need, by which it becomes daily more apparent that they mean giving help only to those in greatest need, which is a definition that grows harsher with every year that the Government remain in power. The Minister spoke of the vast amount spent on the social security budget, and the figures are incontestable. What is equally incontestable is the greatly increased area of need, which has grown partly as a direct result of the Government's economic policies.
The Bill is not a major social security Bill. It affects only epileptics such as Dorothy Moran, who lose their chance of drawing a maximum of about £30 in attendance allowance—in the cause, as the Minister said, of tidying up the law. It affects only those whose industrial injuries were severe enough to entitle them to the maximum reduced earnings allowance, and who stand to lose more than £19 a week when they retire. It affects only young people of 16 and 17 who already have diminished prospects — not only those who, as Conservative

Members have often said and as the Minster has hinted, have rejected the chance to work, train or participate in a Government training scheme.
Every young person between the ages of 16 and 17 will be deprived of his right to benefit, apart from a few who will be granted it as a graceful gesture by the Government of the basis of a few, tightly defined exceptions. Such definitions may well exclude, for example, some who have endured sexual and physical abuse at home, and result in decisions that will not be subject to appeal. For low-income families, the measures will mean that their incomes will drop by £11·50 a week —a minor matter for those who are not in poverty themselves.
The Bill covers only large numbers of women, especially carers, who will lose their right to unemployment and sickness benefit, because the Government—they tell us that it is in the cause of strengthening the national insurance scheme — are tightening up the contribution conditions. It is unfortunate that, because of the Government's desire to strengthen the national insurance basis of the scheme, so many women and others are likely to lose.
The Bill will affect only those forced into so-called voluntary early retirement because of the shortage of employment and perhaps more especially because of the paucity of unemployment benefit. That benefit is bereft of any earnings-related addition and forces people to beggar themselves in their later years by facing the severe financial penalty imposed on those who draw early on their occupational pension to which, of course, they have contributed throughout their working lives.
It will affect people in the police and fire services who have made substantial occupational pension contributions on top of their national insurance contributions. They will be told that one of these rights for which they have paid for and for which, if they stay in employment, they will continue to pay is to be unilaterally withdrawn.
It affects only the very poorest in the land who might be forced to seek help from the DHSS for needs that they cannot meet and which no previous Government have ever expected them to meet from subsistence-level weekly benefits. The resources available for their unmet needs will be cut to the bone, if not beyond it, by the minuscule budgets of the social fund, which on average—especially in the poorer areas — have been cut by about 83 per cent. as a sign of the further support available to those who are by definition the poorest.
The Minister of State told us that none of those things is being done to cut back or to save, but that they are being done to make sure that help is offered only to those who by the Government's declining standards really need it.
Some of the arguments that we heard in discussions on the Bill were pathetic. We have heard the argument that Dorothy Moran and people like her will have to lose their entitlement to benefit because the Government would like to tidy up the law. The Minister assured us that the provisions in the Bill which deal with the Moran judgment are financially neutral and of no real significance to the Government. They are of significance only to the few thousand people like Dorothy Moran who will lose the opportunity to receive that tiny bit of further help for which they would not even be seriously considered unless they were already facing substantial difficulties.
We are told, and the Minister has repeated, that the provisions which deal with 16 and 17-year-olds do not represent compulsion. Of course they do not—perish the


thought. It is just that, if the young people who are involved do not do what the Government say, they will not get any money to live on and their families will not get any money to support them. That distinction is sufficiently fine for bodies such as the Manpower Services Commission and all the youth training scheme providers to be unable to follow it.
I should like to place it on record, as we did in Committee, that we do not think that the Government are in a position to guarantee enough YTS places—even if that were an adequate measure of what should be offered to young people — by the time that this Bill becomes law, if it becomes law. We certainly do not think that there is the slightest chance of there being enough places of the right quality. As my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) said, it was most noticeable that the Government did not begin to consider any qualification that we put forward of what might be a satisfactory offer of a place on some course rather than merely any old offer that could he found to make up the numbers. The Government will be desperate to make up the numbers before April.
It is simply not good enough for the Minister of State casually to say that of course it will be all right and that all places are of good quality. The record of injury and even of death on YTS programmes is not such that anybody can treat proposals of that sort with complacency. When we asked in Committee about the quality of YTS places and about what will happen if the restricted period of entitlement to child benefit or bridging allowance or the other elements of the provision should run out before a proper offer of a place had been made, the only answer we received was that it would not happen between January and April. The Government said that somehow the Department would find what independent estimates have suggested is possibly 100,000 extra places. The Minister assures us that they will all be high-quality places.
The justifications which have been offered for the Bill at many of its stages have been weak, and they were weakest in the debate yesterday. The Minister referred to that debate, and I am grateful to him for the tribute he paid to some of my hon. Friends who raised matters in Committee and in the House. I join him in paying tribute to the tremendous work they have done.
Although the Minister was affected by the case put, which was enormously strong and one would have thought would affect anyone, I was astonished and appalled by the spectacle we saw in the Chamber yesterday. A number of Conservative Members, some of them new Members, suggested that they could not support a provision that would give much-needed help to the families of desperately sick children under the age of two because a Labour Government did not do it. What a pathetic argument.
Those hon. Members rose magnificently above the clear indication that when the last Labour Government left office there was very little experience of the way in which the scheme was working and decided they would ignore that. Some of them argued that they could not support the proposal because they did not like the other proposals put forward by the Opposition in Committee. Presumably they feel that if they support one proposal they must support all of them. It is a novel suggestion and one which we would commend. We do not expect 100 per cent.

support from Conservative Members, but we expect them to listen and sometimes to be affected by reasonable argument.
The cream of the debate was the suggestion that the measure could not be supported because some Conservative Members did not like the tone of the debate. I am sure that the parents of those desperately sick and disabled children will be very sympathetic to that argument. Are these men or mice? They seem to be incapable of responding with any sensitivity to the arguments. If their Government, for whatever reason—however poor we may think the justification—say they have to resist the amendment, that is one thing; but to treat with such contempt serious argument on problems and difficulties is frankly contemptible.
It is strange that some Conservative Members can be so easily dissuaded from pressing the Government who tell us they have money to burn, or at least money that they are prepared to give away in tax cuts, with the bias favouring those who are already the most wealthy.
That carries the seeds of danger for them as a party and a Government. It may carry the seeds of danger for our whole society. I find it hard to believe that anyone could take pride in voting for the Bill. When my hon. Friends and I consider the amendments we have discussed and the debates we have had in Committee and on Report, we know quite certainly that we are right to vote against it.

Mr. Corbyn: I wish to put some things on the record. First, I refer to the expert way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) led my hon. Friends in Committee and to the expertise that she brought to it. I cannot help thinking what an excellent job she would do as Minister for Social Security, because she is concerned about poverty and the need for a social security system that eliminates rather than exacerbates poverty.
Having sat through the Committee on the Bill and the previous Bill, I believe that we live in total unreality. Outside the House, only five minutes walk away, people are living in a cardboard city, with no houses to go to. People are being evicted to make way for property speculators and are living on the streets of London and every other major city. People on every housing estate throughout the country cannot make ends meet. We have the greatest poverty since the war, with 6 million people living below the European poverty threshold.
What does the Bill do? Does it address those problems? Does it say that we will examine the problems of the poor and ensure that the social security system is a genuine safety net? No. The Bill is like taking a pair of scissors to a safety net. It makes holes in the safety net and creates misery and poverty.
I have considered some of the points in the Bill. It deals with the question of the young unemployed. We have heard Tory press stories about feckless youth and young people who do not want work, who are workshy and are trying to get money from the Government. That is utter and absolute bunkum and nonsense, and the Government know it. They know that in reality young people become very depressed at school if they know that there are no jobs for them to go to. They do not become very excited at the prospect of a YTS place instead of a job. When they are told that they will be coerced on to a scheme, they become positively angry. Who can blame them for that? The Bill


is a step towards industrial conscription. The Government intend to introduce industrial conscription to low-wage jobs with a "no hope" future for young people who are the worst trained and worst educated of any industrial country. The Bill is part of that process.
Other sections of the Bill deal with income support, the treatment of people with disabilities and the need for support for carers. There is a thread running through the Bill of parsimony and nastiness in the way in which the regulations operate, until we come to the worst part of the Bill dealing with the social fund and the way in which that operates. Indeed, we have just debated that point.
This is the second Social Security Bill that we have had in a relatively short time. I believe that we will be back here again very soon because there will be much opposition to the way in which the Bill will operate. The Government are very good at producing what they call "fact sheets" on social security. They are very nicely produced, and I commend them. Indeed, they are beautifully produced. It is unfortunate that they have such an ill purpose and that they seek not to eliminate poverty, but to explain why the Government are not prepared to spend public money on eliminating poverty.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South has explained, the Government are more interested in tax concessions to allow a small minority of very wealthy people to live a life of conspicuous consumption while they allow the large number of very poor people to rot. I want a Social Security Bill to be introduced that guarantees living standards, guarantees to eliminate poverty in our society and takes away the threat of coercion implicit in this Bill.
From next April there will be an even greater division in our country between the rich and the poor. There will also be an enormous burden on the people who work in the DHSS to carry out the regulations. Those people are being given insufficient advice and training now. There are staff cuts and they are threatened by privatisation and all the other things that Tory Governments dream up for public servants. We will end up with the problem of low-paid civil servants dealing with very poor people on the other side of the counter, with all the tensions and frictions that that creates.
I feel certain that we will be back fairly soon, because the Bill is unworkable. I hope that it will be very closely monitored if, unfortunately, it receives its Third Reading and is carried into law. I hope that it will be carefully watched from the time that it becomes law and that every possible challenge will be mounted against it so that the Government will be forced to bring in regulations in respect of the social fund, forced to look again at various aspects of the Bill and forced to come back to the House with another Social Security Bill that at least recognises that the job of the DHSS is to eliminate poverty, not to create a labyrinth of legal restrictions that prevent the DHSS from paying people the support and aid that is necessary for them to enjoy a decent existence.

Mrs. Wise: The Minister said that the Bill was about training, targeting and tidying up. I congratulate him on finding some pattern in the Bill, even though it is only one of alliteration. I thought that the Bill was a hotch-potch of ideas, the only connecting link of which was that it made

people's positions worse. The common thread was that it made worse the position of people of different ages and in different circumstances.
The Government had two lines of argument. Some clauses were said to affect very few people, were not important, would not cost very much and were not worth bothering about. Other clauses would affect many people and would cost an enormous amount. They could not say, "The country cannot afford it," because they keep on telling us that the country is in an unparalleled state of prosperity, but they certainly said, "It will cost an enormous amount and we cannot do it." It was confusing to take part in debates, sometimes following immediately after each other, where those mutually exclusive lines of thought were advanced, but we became accustomed to it in Committee and learned to deal with it.
I am slightly inhibited tonight by the Minister's generous praise of the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) and myself to extend the attendance allowance to babies aged under two. I am grateful for that praise and I am glad that we produced some movement. I read carefully the Minister's statement on the matter at the conclusion of yesterday's debate. He said:
The advice that I have received confirms that, as hon. Members argued in Committee, these babies have attendance needs which exceed those of a normal child.
The hon. Members to whom he referred were all Opposition Members. It cannot have been easy for him to concede that we were right. Having said that 3,000 children a year were affected, and that to do what we wanted would cost £7 million a year, the Minister concluded his useful and interesting observations by saying:
If the hon. Lady is not willing to withdraw the new clause, I ask the House to reject it, but against the background of a recognition that support for the families of disabled children throughout the age range will now inescapably be part of the system."—[Official Report, 12 January 1988; Vol. 125, c. 237–38.]
All the Conservatives Members then voted against it.
Our problem is that we do not know what the Minister meant. Will those provisions become part of the system now, or will they become part of it in the fulness of time? In the fulness of time, the under-twos will cease to be under two. Their parents will find it incomprehensible that the Minister has considered the matter and is grateful for the advice of the Opposition, yet there will be no movement until those children are aged over two. I hope the Minister means that when the Bill goes to the other place the Government will introduce an amendment to put his words into effect and the provision "now inescapably" into the social security system.
I hope, too, that the Members of the other place will consider carefully the other arguments of the Opposition, which are equally cogent and correct. They include arguments on carers, and on the iniquity of putting the working-class poor into debt. Officially, for the first time they will be encouraged—nay, coerced—into going into debt. Debt has been the great scourge and fear of working people over generations. Now the state is saying, "You will be in debt to us, and instead of being the final safety net, the state will be your creditor."
I urge those in the other place to continue the arguments, to note that there has been some movement in the minds, if not the votes, of Conservative Members and


to try to rescue some elements of the social security system from the damage that the passage of the Bill will do tonight.
I echo what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn) about the valiant efforts of our hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). It was in some ways a joy to serve on the Committee, although the material of the Bill was so deplorable. It was good to be working as part of a team defending people who need defending, and it was in some respects a model of what Committee proceedings can be.
Of course, the Opposition always have the problem of being grossly under-resourced compared to Ministers. We delighted in seeing the scurrying, the notes and the hasty consultations between the many advisers helping the Minister, and we looked with great favour and approbation at our single, solitary adviser, Tony Lynes, without whom we could not have done the job which even the future Opposition—the present Government—must surely concede was done.
The Government should bear in mind, however, that we also had alongside us, offering us briefings and help, many voluntary organisations. I know that, being non-party political bodies, they will undoubtedly have been offering the same help to Conservative Members, but they will have noticed that the Members of Parliament who responded to their pleas, who read their briefings carefully and took account of them—indeed, understood them—were Opposition Members.
For many years the Conservative party has made the voluntary organisations appear to be its fiefdom. Those days have now gone. Voluntary organisations of all kinds, dealing with all the topics related to health, social security, disability, women—the "establishment" of the women's movement, as my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) described them yesterday, as well as the radical elements — were putting forward items and suggestions that Opposition Members took up. That will not leave the political situation untouched.
Although the Government may defeat us in the Lobby tonight, we have consistently won every argument, day after day. It has been worth putting it on the record. The Government's numbers in the Lobby will not ultimately prevail. We will have a great deal of work to do to undo the damage that they have done, but sooner or later our day will come.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 258, Noes 225.

Division No. 136]
[10.45pm


AYES


Allason, Rupert
Bevan, David Gilroy


Amess, David
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Amos, Alan
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Arbuthnot, James
Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bottomley, Peter


Atkins, Robert
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Atkinson, David
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Bowis, John


Baldry, Tony
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard


Batiste, Spencer
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Brazier, Julian


Bellingham, Henry
Brittan, Rt Hon Leon


Bendall, Vivian
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)


Benyon, W.
Browne, John (Winchester)





Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Knapman, Roger


Buck, Sir Antony
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Burns, Simon
Knowles, Michael


Burt, Alistair
Knox, David


Butler, Chris
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Butterfill, John
Lang, Ian


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Latham, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Lawrence, Ivan


Carrington, Matthew
Lee, John (Pendle)


Carttiss, Michael
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Cash, William
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Churchill, Mr
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lightbown, David


Cope, John
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Couchman, James
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Cran, James
Lord, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Luce, Rt Hon Richard


Curry, David
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Day, Stephen
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Maclean, David


Durant, Tony
McLoughlin, Patrick


Dykes, Hugh
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Fallon, Michael
Major, Rt Hon John


Forman, Nigel
Malins, Humfrey


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maples, John


Fox, Sir Marcus
Marland, Paul


Gale, Roger
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Gill, Christopher
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Mates, Michael


Glyn, Dr Alan
Maude, Hon Francis


Goodlad, Alastair
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Gow, Ian
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gower, Sir Raymond
Mellor, David


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Miller, Hal


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Mills, Iain


Gregory, Conal
Miscampbell, Norman


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grist, Ian
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Ground, Patrick
Moate, Roger


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Monro, Sir Hector


Hampson, Dr Keith
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Hannam, John
Moore, Rt Hon John


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Morrison, Sir Charles (Devizes)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Harris, David
Moss, Malcolm


Hawkins, Christopher
Moynihan, Hon C.


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Mudd, David


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Neale, Gerrard


Heddle, John
Nelson, Anthony


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Neubert, Michael


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Nicholls, Patrick


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Holt, Richard
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hordern, Sir Peter
Page, Richard


Howard, Michael
Paice, James


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Patnick, Irvine


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Patten, Chris (Bath)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Pawsey, James


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Porter, David (Waveney)


Irvine, Michael
Portillo, Michael


Jack, Michael
Powell, William (Corby)


Jackson, Robert
Raffan, Keith


Janman, Timothy
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Jessel, Toby
Redwood, John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Renton, Tim


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Rhodes James, Robert


Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Key, Robert
Riddick, Graham


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm






Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Tracey, Richard


Roe, Mrs Marion
Tredinnick, David


Rost, Peter
Trippier, David


Rowe, Andrew
Trotter, Neville


Rumbold, Mrs Angela
Twinn, Dr Ian


Sackville, Hon Tom
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Viggers, Peter


Sayeed, Jonathan
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Scott, Nicholas
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waller, Gary


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Ward, John


Sims, Roger
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Watts, John


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


Speed, Keith
Wheeler, John


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Whitney, Ray


Squire, Robin
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Stanbrook, Ivor
Wiggin, Jerry


Steen, Anthony
Wilkinson, John


Stern, Michael
Wilshire, David


Stevens, Lewis
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Winterton, Nicholas


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Wolfson, Mark


Sumberg, David
Wood, Timothy


Summerson, Hugo
Woodcock, Mike


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Yeo, Tim


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman



Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Thornton, Malcolm
Mr. Richard Ryder and


Thurnham, Peter
Mr. Stephen Dorrell.


NOES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Coleman, Donald


Allen, Graham
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Anderson, Donald
Corbyn, Jeremy


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cousins, Jim


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Cox, Tom


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Crowther, Stan


Ashton, Joe
Cryer, Bob


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Cummings, J.


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Barron, Kevin
Cunningham, Dr John


Beckett, Margaret
Dalyell, Tam


Beggs, Roy
Darling, Alastair


Bell, Stuart
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Bermingham, Gerald
Dewar, Donald


Bidwell, Sydney
Dixon, Don


Blair, Tony
Dobson, Frank


Blunkett, David
Doran, Frank


Boateng, Paul
Douglas, Dick


Boyes, Roland
Dunnachie, James


Bradley, Keith
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Eastham, Ken


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fatchett, Derek


Buchan, Norman
Faulds, Andrew


Buckley, George
Fearn, Ronald


Caborn, Richard
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Callaghan, Jim
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Flannery, Martin


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)


Canavan, Dennis
Foster, Derek


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Fraser, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Fyfe, Mrs Maria


Clay, Bob
Galbraith, Samuel


Clelland, David
Galloway, George


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Cohen, Harry
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)





George, Bruce
Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Golding, Mrs Llin
Morgan, Rhodri


Gordon, Ms Mildred
Morley, Elliott


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Morris, Rt Hon A (W'shawe)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Morris, Rt Hon J (Aberavon)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Grocott, Bruce
Mullin, Chris


Harman, Ms Harriet
Murphy, Paul


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Nellist, Dave


Heffer, Eric S.
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Hinchliffe, David
O'Brien, William


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
O'Neill, Martin


Holland, Stuart
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Home Robertson, John
Patchett, Terry


Hood, James
Pendry, Tom


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pike, Peter


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Howells, Geraint
Prescott, John


Hoyle, Doug
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Randall, Stuart


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hume, John
Reid, John


Illsley, Eric
Richardson, Ms Jo


Ingram, Adam
Robertson, George


Janner, Greville
Robinson, Geoffrey


John, Brynmor
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Kilfedder, James
Rowlands, Ted


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Kirkwood, Archy
Salmond, Alex


Lambie, David
Sheerman, Barry


Lamond, James
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Leadbitter, Ted
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Leighton, Ron
Short, Clare


Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)
Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Terry
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Livingstone, Ken
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Livsey, Richard
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Snape, Peter


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Soley, Clive


Loyden, Eddie
Spearing, Nigel


McAllion, John
Steinberg, Gerald


McAvoy, Tom
Stott, Roger


McCartney, Ian
Strang, Gavin


Macdonald, Calum
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McFall, John
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


McGrady, E. K.
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Turner, Dennis


McKelvey, William
Vaz, Keith


McLeish, Henry
Wall, Pat


McNamara, Kevin
Wallace, James


McTaggart, Bob
Walley, Ms Joan


McWilliam, John
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Madden, Max
Wareing, Robert N.


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Mallon, Seamus
Wigley, Dafydd


Marek, Dr John
Williams, Rt Hon A. J.


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Wilson, Brian


Martin, Michael (Springburn)
Winnick, David


Martlew, Eric
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Maxton, John
Worthington, Anthony


Meacher, Michael
Wray, James


Meale, Alan
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Michael, Alun



Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Tellers for the Noes:


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Mr. Frank Cook and


Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Mr. Frank Haynes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time and passed.

Income and Corporation Taxes Bill [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Nicholas Lyell): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill consolidates enactments relating to income tax and corporation tax. The last such consolidation took place in 1970 and the additions and amendments to the law made by each subsequent Finance Act have made a new consolidation exercise necessary. The Bill is pure consolidation. No amendment to the present law is made.
The House will recognise, if only from the massive bulk of the Bill—it contains 845 clauses and more than 1,000 pages — that the work of consolidation represents a formidable achievement on the part of those concerned. We owe a debt of gratitude especially to the draftsman who worked for over four years to produce the Bill. She had to deal not only with the legislation as it existed but with all the Finance Acts each year, including two Finance Acts last year. If I were a farmer, I would give the Bill a pat.
I should, however, make it clear that there are a number of technical amendments which will have to be dealt with in Committee in the fairly near future. I make that clear for the technical experts who scrutinise the text in the meantime.
The Bill has been passed in another place where, in the usual way, it was referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c., Bills. That Committee reported that the Bill is pure consolidation. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mr. John Fraser: It is not right that either laymen or lawyers should have to pick their way through the coded messages put through the House over a period of 17 years. I am a strong and long-standing enthusiast of consolidation.
I want to ask the Minister only one question. The Bill says that there will be a table of derivations. May we also have a table of destinations so that we may know legislatively not only where we have been but where we are going?
This is one of those occasions when one can ingratiate oneself with the Speaker and hope to be encouraged to speak again, and one can ingratiate oneself with one's Scottish comrades. I so do, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House. —[ Mr. Lightbown.]
Committee tomorrow.

Committee of Selection (Special Report)

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House takes note of the Special Report from the Committee of Selection of 9th December, relating to the Scottish Affairs Committee.— [Mr. Lightbown.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment standing in the name of the Leader of the Opposition.

11 pm

Sir Marcus Fox: My contribution to this debate will be much shorter than the one I made in the debate on 2 December because of the need to hear what colleagues and friends from Scotland on both sides of the House and other hon. Members have to say in this short debate. There is a major difference between the previous debate when we were seeking approval for our nominations and this debate when we are merely asking for advice and instruction. It is not often that Committees come to the House with that objective in mind.
I shall briefly recount the reasons why the Committee felt the need to produce its special report. As the House will know, the Committee of Selection has the duty of bringing before the House motions for the nomination of the 14 departmental Select Committees. On 2 December, I moved motions relating to 13 of those Committees and they were approved by the House. The Committee of Selection has not yet invited the House to consider a similar motion in respect of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Patience is a virtue that will be rewarded shortly.
On 9 December the Committee agreed a short special report stating that we found ourselves unable to nominate a Scottish Affairs Select Committee which, in our opinion, would have the support of the House and, therefore, proposed to take no further action on the matter unless instructed by the House to do so. With the permission of the House, I shall explain briefly the background to that report and why the Committee is now seeking this debate.
In a series of meetings last autumn we considered, along with the many other items on our agenda, how best to set up the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. We accepted that there should be a Government majority on the Committee in accordance with the conventions of the House and with the fact that we are members of a unitary Parliament representing the whole of the United Kingdom. To achieve that, it was necessary to reduce the size of the Committee from 13 to nine and I understand that, through the usual channels, that was agreed. On 12 November the Committee's motion, with the names of the Conservative and minority party Members, was tabled. The Labour names were not ready at that stage but were added on 19 November. We thought that the resulting motion was a compromise with which both sides of the House could live.
However, the Committee received a letter from one of the hon. Members named in the motion — my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)—saying that he was not willing to serve on the Committee. As Standing Order No. 104 requires the Committee of Selection to ascertain whether an hon. Member will give his attendance, we felt that we had no option but to amend our motion further to remove the hon. Gentleman's name.
This left on the Order Paper a motion nominating only eight hon. Members to the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. The options seemed to be having a Committee of eight that did not reflect the Government's majority in the House, which we recognised would not be in accordance with the conventions and practices of the House, or a Committee that included at least one hon. Member representing an English constituency. We understood at that time—there may have been developments since—that the second option would not be acceptable to the principal Opposition party.
The Committee of Selection never discussed this issue on the basis that it was not its role to make a ruling. As I made clear in a previous debate that embraced other Select Committees, it is for each party to decide which hon. Members it will nominate.
By early December 1987 we had reached an impasse. The Committee of Selection felt that any proposal that it might put forward would prove unacceptable to one side of the House or the other. It was against that background that it made its special report. The report is not an attempt to block or prevent the setting up of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. It is merely an acknowledgement of real difficulties. The report is intended to leave all options open with a view to seeking further guidance from the House. The Committee of Selection will be delighted to be given guidance that will lead to the setting up of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs with a composition that will be broadly acceptable to the House.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham): I am sure that the House will be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) for his outline of the Committee of Selection's consideration of this matter and for the way in which the Committee tried to reach an agreed solution in what were clearly difficult and changing circumstances.
As is so often the case in matters relating to the House, the problem is not entirely new. Select Committees on Scottish Affairs have presented special problems on occasions in the past. A series of Sessional Scottish Select Committees lapsed without exciting much comment in the early 1970s, following some years of activity. No further Committee was appointed for several years until 1979, despite the momentous Scottish issues before the House and the nation during that time. In 1979 the establishment of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs followed some time after that of the other departmental Select Committees. I hope that in this case, too, we shall similarly succeed in completing our Committee structure.
The deliberations of the Committee of Selection are, of course, private. However, from what my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley has said, and from the various motions which have appeared in his name on the Order Paper, my understanding of the Committee's position is as follows. On 18 November 1987, the Committee of Selection tabled a motion to set up a Select Committee which it believed would be generally acceptable and which it knew was in accordance with the traditions of the House. Instead of the maximum 13 members, only nine were nominated. That enabled the Committee to reflect the Government's majority in the House while comprising only Members representing Scottish constituencies. The Committee of Selection was then told by my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) that he was


not prepared to serve on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, and he was accordingly removed from the list of nominees. That left a motion to set up a Committee of only eight members, and a dilemma.
We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley the problem facing the Committee of Selection. It was required to take account of the refusal of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North to serve, but a Select Committee of the eight other Members nominated would not have been in accordance with the conventions of the House because it would not reflect the Government's majority. Yet the Government's majority on the Committee could be achieved only by nominating a Committee which was not exclusively made up of Members representing Scottish constituencies, which the Committee of Selection believed would be unacceptable to the Opposition. It seems to have had good reason for that belief. The Opposition parties were represented on the Committee, and so were able to suggest or support a non-Scottish element as a way forward if that had been acceptable to them. There is also the fact that the Labour party did not nominate its members of the Committee until the week after it had seen the original motion nominating as the Conservative Members my five hon. Friends who sit on the Back. Benches representing Scottish constituencies. The Committee of Selection therefore adjourned its consideration of the matter and reported to the House.
I accept, of course, that if my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North had felt able to serve on the Select Committee we might already have set it up. But he is within his rights to refuse, and indeed Standing Order No. 104 clearly implies that some Members will not wish to serve in this capacity. No doubt my hon. Friend may well seek to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, later in this debate.
I am sure it would be generally accepted that the responsibility for determining whether a Select Committee he appointed should not be left to one Member's personal decision whether he will serve. Nor need it be. In this unitary Parliament it is a principle that Members from all parts of the United Kingdom have an equal right to be heard. Likewise, all Members are equally eligible to be considered for membership of any Select Committee. If a party finds that it has more volunteers for a Select Committee than places available to it, some further form of selection is necessary. It is not surprising that in the past all members of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs have been Members for Scottish constituencies. But on this occasion the refusal of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North to serve means that those of my hon. Friends who sit for constituencies outside Scotland and who are interested in serving on the Scottish Affairs Committee, as they are perfectly entitled to do, find their chances of being put forward greatly increased. I can see nothing wrong with that.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: I do not know whether this is the right moment to raise this matter, but I am nervous about how long my right hon. Friend will continue. At the outset, my right hon. Friend said that there was no Scottish Affairs Select Committee between 1974 and 1979. Have I understood my right hon. Friend correctly?

Mr. Wakeham: That is absolutely right. I am trying to be as non-partisan as I can, but between 1974 and 1979 no Select Committee on Scottish Affairs was set up.
So far as the Opposition are concerned, whatever their earlier views, in their amendment to the motion I see welcome signs that they may be prepared to accept the principle that all hon. Members should be equally eligible to be considered for Select Committee nomination. If that is indeed the case, I look forward to hearing their more detailed proposals for constructive guidance to the Committee of Selection, and I hope that we may soon see the Select Committee established. I share their regret that it has not yet been possible to appoint it.

Mr. Donald Dewar: I am not as well versed in the etiquette of the House as the right hon. Gentleman and I genuinely hope that I am not transgressing in any way. I believe that he might agree that, whatever the Committee of Selection's interpretation, events have certainly moved on in terms of the exchange of views through the usual channels. I put it as broadly as that. It is clear that if the Government felt that they could man the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs by topping up with the introduction of perhaps one hon. Member who did not represent a Scottish constituency, the Opposition view was that that should be put to the House. There was a certain implication in that offer.

Mr. Wakeham: I understand the hon. Gentleman, and there is a difference between us. Our view is that in a unitary Parliament Members from either side of the House are entitled to serve on any Committee. I am not prepared to accept the proposition that that is what the hon. Gentleman has called "topping up". However, I am perfectly happy to listen to the debate.
I believe that the Opposition's amendment and their analysis of the failure to set up the Committee does not take proper account of the more complex questions of principle involved, particularly now that we have heard the account of my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley. Nor do I believe it to be a proper way forward simply to refer the question back to the Committee of Selection without clarifying the way in which we wish it to proceed in its consideration.
Although it has not been selected, I hope it will be in order to turn briefly to the amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) and his colleagues in the Scottish National party. I recognise their particular interest in this, and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Angus, East for his courtesy in writing to my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary setting out his party's position on the membership of the Committee. I shall listen with great care to what he says tonight. But I have to say that I do not believe that the suggestion that the Committee of Selection should base its decisions on the general election result rather than the composition of the House is one that provides a generally acceptable way forward for further discussions.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: The proposition that those elected by the Scottish people who wish to serve on the Committee should be excluded because others who were elected by similar Scottish votes do not wish to serve is ludicrous. In place of the Scottish Members who are willing to serve on the Committee we are to have English Members, who do not have one Scottish vote to back them up, being dragged in to serve on the Committee. That is ludicrous and it goes against basic democratic rights.

Mr. Wakeham: On democratic rights, we are all elected as Members of the United Kingdom Parliament. By the


conventions of the House and by any democratic arrangement the party with the largest number of seats in the House is entitled to a majority on the Committee. Therefore, it is not possible to meet the demands of the SNP and recognise the fundamental principle of the way that all Select Committees work. The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is not a second-class Committee; it is as important a Select Committee as any other and should be formed in the same way.
This debate is an opportunity, which the Committee of Selection could not have when it made its special report, to hear the views of the House. I will listen to the debate for confirmation that both sides of the House endorse the principle of equal eligibility in a unitary Parliament which I mentioned earlier. Provided that this principle is accepted, I hope that we may find a common basis for continuing discussion about how we should proceed. The House can then return to this matter at an appropriate moment and give the Committee of Selection the clear guidance that it will require.

Mr Frank Dobson: I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the question and to add instead thereof:
'regrets the failure to establish a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs in view of the significant role it has to play in scrutinising the activities of the Scottish Office; recognises that the difficulties of the Committee of Selection are the direct result of the reluctance of Conservative honourable Members from Scotland to serve, and calls on them to reconsider their decision; notes the willingness of honourable Members from the other parts of the House to join the Committee and to seek a constructive solution to present difficulties; and, in the light of the above, instructs the Committee of Selection to nominate a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.'
The present position is unsatisfactory and cannot be allowed to persist. It would be wrong for the Leader of the House to attempt to lay the blame for the failure of the House to establish a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs at the door of either the Committee of Selection or the Opposition. The fault lies with the Government, and the Leader of the House made that crystal clear this evening when he said that, on the basic principle that this is a unitary Parliament, the Government can appoint whom they like to represent them on the Committee. Why has he not got on with it and done that? If he had done that before Christmas we could have had the Committee in operation at the same time as the others.
I hope that neither the Leader of the House nor any of his hon. Friends will start pleading anything that happened before the departmental Select Committees were established as a precedent for not having a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. The fact is that departmental Committees were established by the House because it was believed by the House as a whole—this unitary Parliament — that there should be Select Committees monitoring every major Department of State, and the Scottish Office is a major Department of State.
The reason why the Committee was not established was that the Government could not, at that time, find enough Tories whom they regarded as suitable to serve on it. As we all know, that problem stems from the commendable good sense of the people of Scotland, who reduced the number of Tory Members of Parliament in Scotland to an

unrepresentative rump of 10. We are now in the curious position that almost twice as many Tory hon. Members who were born in Scotland represent seats in England and Wales as dared to stay in Scotland and leave their political fate to be decided by their compatriots. The records show that the place of birth of 32 Tory MPs is unknown—whatever that means—but of those whose place of birth is recorded, no fewer than 17 hon. Members representing seats in England and Wales were born in Scotland. So it is understandable that ambitious Tories born there should leave their native land, because it clearly almost doubles their chances of being elected to the House.
With five Scottish Tories in the Government, and only five Back Benchers left to serve on the Select Committee, the Government's business managers were left with a number of choices, which they could have exercised at any time they liked. The Opposition, with 100 votes fewer than the Government, could do nothing to stop them. They could have allowed the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs to reflect the views of the people of Scotland and not have a Tory majority. At least that would have made it easier for them, following the Committee's establishment, to dismiss its recommendations and conclusions as irrelevant and prejudiced against the Government. We understand that the Government's business managers considered that, but the Prime Minister could not stand the idea.
Conservative hon. Members, with childhoods spent in public school, form the party of discipline, and one would have thought that they might—as another alternative—have persuaded all five Tory Back Benchers to agree to serve on the Committee. I should have thought that all five of them — including the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) — had an obligation to their constituents and to the people of Scotland properly to discharge their duties in the House. It would appear that the hon. Member for Tayside, North is going to grace us with a speech tonight, but he is not prepared to do the hard slogging on the Select Committee.

Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Gentleman should not continue too far in that vein. Has he, at any time in his parliamentary career, served on three Select Committees at the same time? I have.

Mr. Dobson: I have neither the hon. Gentleman's vaulting ambition nor his towering intellect, and I would not seek to do so. I say that he has an obligation to his constituents and to the people of Scotland to divest himself of his other interests and start representing theirs on the Select Committee.
The Government's other alternative—they have the power to do this—would have been to recruit some of those English Tory Members from Scotland—known in footballing terms as the Anglos — to serve on the Committee. After all, some of them have been keen to participate in Scottish Question Time. Some Conservative Members are willing to clown about in the Chamber, but not to do the heavy work in Committee. In addition—

Mr. Rowe: I wonder whether the principles on which the hon. Gentleman has constructed his admirable speech embrace the fact that his hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) has tabled an early-day motion, signed by a large number of his Scottish hon. Friends, commenting on community care in Kent?

Mr. Dobson: They have obviously accepted the principle enunciated by the Leader of the House that this is a unitary Parliament, and they are exercising the rights that ensue from that.
The other alternative was for the Government to follow the example of Glasgow Rangers and import for the Committee a few English Ministers who were actually born in England. However, that would probably have been entirely unacceptable to them.

Mr. Brian Wilson: No Catholics.

Mr. Dobson: In deference to my hon. Friend, I can assure him that in researching where Tory Ministers were born I did not inquire into their religious beliefs. We all know what they are: they all worship Mammon.
The Government have the power to follow the principle enunciated by the Leader of the House, but they have not done any of the things that I have suggested. They have not established the Select Committee and are treating the people of Scotland with contempt by preventing proper scrutiny of the activities of the Scottish Office. That is why the Secretary of State for Scotland is so pleased that the Committee has not been established.
The Opposition recognise the importance of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and think that, ideally, its membership should reflect the views of the people of Scotland, which were so overwhelmingly expressed at the general election. We also recognise force majeure in the shape of a Tory majority of 100. We do not expect ideal arrangements of any sort to be brought into operation. Therefore, all along we have sought to get the Committee established as soon as possible, and preferably with a wholly Scottish membership, but not necessarily if the Tory Whips cannot get all the Scottish Tory Members to do their duty.
What the Government are doing, or failing to do, is an insult to the people of Scotland, but it is also important for individual hon. Members, for the House and for people in the rest of the United Kingdom. If the Government get away with not establishing one departmental Select Committee, it will not be long before they try to get rid of another one because it is also inconvenient. Therefore, there is a basic principle at stake. Anybody who is interested in the scrutiny of the Executive will agree that this Committee must be established.
The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs has much work to do. The regional policy announcements made yesterday will clearly have an impact on Scotland and will need to be looked at. Yesterday the Secretary of State for Scotland, in response to a question by me, supplied me with a list. This is the list, and it weighs no less than 31 lb. It is a list of all those public appointments in Scotland for which he is responsible. I know that my right hon. and hon. Friends are keen to start scrutinising this list, if only to find out how many Tories have been appointed to these positions. They especially want to see how many ex-Tory Members of Parliament are getting on to the public payroll in Scotland, having denounced public expenditure until some of it was put in their pockets.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that the Labour party needs Select Committees to organise us?

Mr. Dobson: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's parents hail from Northern Ireland or

Scotland, but he ought to know that while it is possible for individual hon. Members to do work, Select Committees have a special role to play.
I am sure that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs would be interested in all these public appointments in Scotland. However, there are far more important matters than public appointments to be considered and that need the urgent attention of the Select Committee.
The Government should listen to this debate and assist the Committee of Selection. They should do their duty and pick their team, however mixed its origins or ability. One of the problems is that they know in their heart of hearts that, whatever team they pick, Labour's Scottish team will play them off the park.

Mr. James Wallace: There is nothing to be gained from labouring the point, but the political reality in Scotland following the last election is that the Government party is in a substantial minority. Scotland has 50 Labour Members, 10 Conservative Members, nine alliance Members and three Scottish National party Members.

Mr. Wilson: Is that	 the auld alliance?

Mr. Wallace: It was those who fought the general election under the manifesto "Britain United". The composition of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee should reflect the number of Scottish seats held in the House by the various political parties.
In July last year, after the election, my hon. Friends and I tabled early-day motion 87, which proposed that the composition of the Select Committee should be five Labour Members, three Conservative Members, two alliance Members and one Scottish National party Member. If anything, that was a little generous to the Conservative party, given that it had only one more seat than the combined forces of the alliance.
Nevertheless, as the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said, we recognise force majeure. If the Government do not wish to have an Opposition majority, they have the majority in the House to vote it down. It is perfectly clear that a Committee without a Government majority would not be accepted. One can understand why the Government do not want a Committee with an Opposition majority, because the Committee would have the power to summon Ministers every fortnight, or even more regularly, and lambast them with the policies currently afflicting Scotland.
There is something to be said for a Committee with an Opposition majority, although the Scottish public would find it tedious if Government Ministers were constantly hauled over the coals before the Committee. The public: would expect a Committee, particularly one with an Opposition majority, to be more responsible and to have a probing role into the affairs of the Scottish Office.
The Government have had difficulty in getting a Committee with a majority of their Members. The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) has declined to serve and there is an indication that the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) is unwilling to serve, as is the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). I see that the Member for Eastwood is nodding assent. Undoubtedly those hon. Members have the right under the Standing Orders to decline to serve, but


hon. Members should not claim only rights; they also have responsibilities. The Back-Bench Members of a Government who have so few Scottish Members, but who nevertheless claim to have a mandate to govern Scotland, have a duty to bear some responsibility and be prepared to take part in the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, if that is the cost of setting up the Committee.
The Committee of Selection, on which I serve as the representative of the minority parties, when it was clear that the Government would not have a majority of Scottish Members, suggested that it was still possible to get a Committee of four Conservative Members, three Labour Members, one Liberal Member and one Scottish National party Member. I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) that it is unfair that the Scottish National party has Members who are anxious to serve but are denied the right to do so, when Conservative Members for Scottish seats have declined to serve.
The other possibility was that the Government could supplement its numbers from English Members. The hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) said that no proposal was put before the Committee of Selection that included the name of any hon. Member for an English constituency.
I tried to follow the exchanges. Using a football analogy, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras suggested that the Labour party would be prepared to accept an hon. Member for an English constituency—preferably an hon. Member with Scottish origins. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then perhaps it is any hon. Member for an English seat. [HON. MEMBERS: "Any will do."] The Opposition do not intend to be racist about it. An hon. Member for a Welsh seat would be acceptable. I hope that the Leader of the House has noted that suggestion.

Mr. Dewar: May I make it abundantly clear that we believe that by far the best solution would be if the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs could be constituted along traditional lines, with Scottish Members of Parliament serving on it. There are a number of ways in which that could be done. Given the Government's view of the matter, the only way in which the Committee is likely to be set up is if we are prepared to adopt a more flexible view. It would be better to have a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs than to have no Committee. We should expect a solid contribution from Scottish Members of Parliament on the Government side, but if the only way in which the Committee can be saved is by some form of dilution—we do not seek to dictate to the Government who should serve on the Committee; it would be neither proper nor constructive to do so — we should be prepared to pay that price.

Mr. Wallace: The whole House is indebted to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) for setting out the position so clearly. No hon. Member can be in any doubt now about the position.
Among a number of other issues that we have considered during the	 course of a rather busy day, we have agonised over whether it would be better to have no Committee at all rather than a Committee that included hon	. Members from south of the border. We have come, regretfully, to the same conclusion as the hon. Member for Garscadden: that it would be far better to have a Committee than to have no Committee at all.
A Committee that was bound to divide on partisan, party political lines would make no worthwhile contribution, but hon. Members from Scottish constituencies would be able to identify a large number of problems and issues that affect Scotland that need not necessarily divide the Committee along party political lines — for example, the state of Scottish prisons, what has happened since the setting up of the Scottish legal aid board a few months ago and the clash between environmental, farming and industrial interests. If the Committee were to work constructively, it could make an important contribution to the government of Scotland and also to the government of the United Kingdom as a whole.
My right hon. and hon. Friends agree with the official Opposition's view, and I hope that the Leader of the House will be able to respond constructively to what has been said from this side of the House.

Mr. Bill Walker: On this day of all days, I find it rich that a Liberal spokesman should talk to Conservative Members about responsibility and working together. Really!
I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate, because I am thereby given the means of placing on record the reasons why I am not prepared to serve as a member of the Scottish Affairs Committee. I have not taken that decision lightly, and it is not a decision that I have arrived at overnight. I should also explain that I have received only one letter on this matter while it has been under discussion. I hope that by detailing my reasons I shall demolish the bogus allegations that have been made about my position and motives.

Mr. Dewar: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman made a factual comment about his mailbag. However, he should not give the impression to those hon. Members present who may not be so familiar with the Scottish scene that there is no concern in Scotland about the fate of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee. There clearly is concern and it is reflected in every quarter. Is there not evidence of that in the fact that the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Association expressed its disquiet and dismay at the attitude taken by the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)?

Mr. Walker: Actually, that was the only letter that I received.
As I said earlier, I hope, by detailing my reasons, to demolish the bogus allegations that have been made about my position and motives. At the same time, I shall try to dispel the myths that have been spread by some sections of the Scottish media. I cite for example today's editorial in the Glasgow Herald. It states:
Some Scottish Conservative Back Benchers among that small residue who have not been pressed into ministerial service have shown hostility to the idea of serving on it"—
the Scottish Affairs Committee—
as lobby fodder"—
and that is the important phrase. What nonsense.
Every hon. Member knows that Select Committees are Back-Bench Committees. They are not Standing Committees and they do not create legislation. They do not have Ministers and Whips and, unlike Standing Committees, they do not contain Members who are Lobby fodder. Select Committees consist of Members from the Opposition or the Government; they are not Lobby


fodder. Those Select Committees that have been seen to be effective are those in which Back-Bench Members have not been Lobby fodder. In those Committees, Members have submerged party loyalty in the interests of being good and effective House of Commons men and women and good Select Committee members.
I have had the good fortune to serve on two such Select Committees, one of which—the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration— was chaired by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Colchester, North (Sir A. Buck). I served on that Select Committee in two Parliaments and I hope that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) is aware of that. That Select Committee is a splendid example of an effective House of Commons Select Committee. In it partisan loyalty is given second place to Committee loyalty and it has achieved much good work and has presented good reports to Parliament. The result is that the Committee is respected by those it interviews and, more importantly, the Government take the Committee's recommendations seriously. They have led to changes in the law and to changes and improvements in the management of Government Departments and Health Service administration. That is as effective a Select Committee as the House could wish to see.
Sadly, I have to advise the House that the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs fell far below the standards of the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. The result was that Committee members were often unhappy with its conduct. On three occasions during the previous two Parliaments I was obliged to move what were effectively votes of no confidence in the Chair or in the conduct of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs.
I was deeply saddened by that, because I believed genuinely that it would be possible to have high investigative standards similar to those achieved in the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. I was doubly saddened because I had volunteered to serve on the Select Committee. As a convinced supporter of a unitary Parliament, I wanted Scottish matters to be handled in a modern, sympathetic and realistic manner. But however hard we tried, and however energetically I and others worked on the inquiries, often reading complex evidence that had been presented to the Committee, I became convinced that the Committee was a misuse of scarce and valuable parliamentary time.
The crunch came with the inquiry into Gartcosh. It soon became evident that members had not read the evidence submitted, or that they did not understand the evidence submitted, or that they had already decided what the Committee's report would say, regardless of the evidence that was presented. This culminated in my speaking to the first amendment to the Chairman's first draft report. Everyone knows that there is no time limit on speeches in Select Committees. The objective of my speech was to insert some flexibility into the draft report so that it would reflect more accurately the evidence that had been submitted to the Committee. I am pleased to tell the House that, after I had been speaking for a considerable time, a colleague of mine was able to negotiate changes to the report.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman is trying to tell us that the Select

Committee would work much better if he was not a member of it, but is it not true that, in the Gartcosh inquiry, it was a question not of Conservative Members being at odds with Opposition Members, but of the hon. Gentleman being at odds with other members of the Conservative group?

Mr. Walker: Sadly, I must admit the truth of that. shall tell the hon. Gentleman and the House why. I hope that my record of opposing skullduggery, from wherever it comes, is known to the House. When a Committee is presented with evidence, and that evidence confuses—[HON. MEMBERS: "You."] I know exactly what it. contained: profit and loss accounts, cash accounts —

Mr. Dick Douglas: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Time is limited in this debate. I do not like intervening in any hon. Member's speech, but we have an obligation to give some instructions and guidance to the Committee of Selection, and I wonder whether the speech of the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is helping us in that regard.

Mr. Speaker: Every hon. Member must take responsibility for his own speech. I think that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) was deflected by a question that was put to him. I hope that he will return to the main topic.

Mr. Walker: I had not intended to go into this in detail. If hon. Members wish to have the details of that inquiry, they should read the evidence that was reported to the House. All that I will say is that an attempt was made deliberately to mislead the Committee, and I would not be a party to it.
The result of all this was that the Committee could no longer command the respect of Ministers. Consequently, I felt—in this I am at one with Liberal Members— that it was time that I left the Committee, and I wrote to the Chairman of the Committee of Selection at the time. I arrived at my decision not as a result of the general election of 1987, but because I was unhappy with the conduct of the business of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee. Hon. Members who were members of that Committee, and who honestly believe in their hearts that we could and should have done a good job for Scotland, would be hard pressed to say that we were doing that. We were spending hours and hours indulging in what were often purely party-political battles.
I also find it offensive that snide remarks have been made—even, on occasion, from the Opposition Front Bench—suggesting that my attitude has something to do with the fact that I am not sitting on the Treasury Bench. Anyone who cares to study my history will find that I arrived in the House very seriously injured: it is surprising that I was able to stand at all. Moreover, anyone who cares to study the position that I have taken on Scottish matters will know that I have always intended to be independent and constructive. That is hardly the recipe for climbing the greasy pole of preferment, but I chose that course deliberately, as I have done this evening.
I also find it rich that the Scottish National party should be telling us how much it: cares about the Scottish Affairs Committee, when everyone knows that in the last two Parliaments Gordon Wilson and Donald Stewart refused to serve on it. Anyone who cares to investigate will


find that some interesting comments were made by both gentlemen, none of which was in favour of the Committee. Indeed, they all opposed it.
In the light of what I have said, and the sad history of the Scottish Affairs Committee, I feel that the House would be well advised to take note of what the Committee of Selection has told it this evening. Hon. Members should remember that, if we are to make such Committees work, we cannot do so on the purely partisan lines that have been followed in the Scottish Affairs Committee in the last two or three Parliaments.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: If anything is an advertisement for Scottish self-government, I think that these proceedings are such an advertisement. If nothing else, it would at least relieve English Members of this kind of conduct.
I note that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) is opposed to the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, not because he failed that Committee, but because it failed to reach his high standards. Bearing that in mind, my sympathies are entirely with those who served on the Committee with him. The hon. Gentleman is the most Unionist of Conservative Members, and he of all people should be taking part in what is a British institution of the House. It is disgraceful that he has held up our proceedings in such a fashion. He should be volunteering to serve.
This is very much the late-late show: it is rather knockabout stuff. I find it a disgraceful way to treat a very serious matter which concerns the government of Scotland. It is not so much a debate as some kind of punishment that we are all asked to undergo. As midnight approaches, I find it very difficult to explain to the Scottish people exactly how the House conducts its business and considers the government of our country at this late hour and in such a cursory fashion.
At the end of this so-called debate, reality will set in, because to the vote will be added the mass of English Tory Members who will make the final decision. It is a harsh system. When we come to a vote, the English majority will arrive and decide what happens, and the Scots will have to go along with it. People playing for Rangers nowadays must experience a rather similar feeling. But that is the principle of English Tory Members deciding what goes on in Scotland. That principle was enunciated very clearly by the Leader of the House. It should be unacceptable to Scots.

Mr. John Marshall: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me how it is different when Scottish Members are willing to vote on Sunday trading in England and Wales and impose on England and Wales conditions that do not apply in Scotland, and to vote on the abolition of the Greater London council, which could scarcely be described as a Scottish issue?

Mr. Welsh: The hon. Member is asking the wrong person. I would not have taken part in those decisions. We do not expect to run England, and we would rather not have England run our affairs.
This is a coroner's hearing. I choose an English procedure, because that is how the House is run. It is a coroner's hearing without the corpse, which disappeared

with the previous Parliament. Unless the Government get themselves organised, that will be followed by the funeral of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee, and that would not be good enough.
This is not a debate, because we know its outcome. The Government will decide through the Whips. It is no use saying that the matter will be sent to the Committee of Selection, for the Government will decide, using their majority there. This is no way in which to treat Scottish business, especially on a take note motion—a technical device—which is designed to put the Select Committee into limbo, which is what the Government are about.
We are discussing fundamental Back-Bench rights. We are considering the right of hon. Members to scrutinise Ministers and bring them to account. There is frustration in my party, among all Opposition Members and some Conservative Back Benchers about how Back Benchers are treated by the Government, who steamroller over our rights. The Select Committees are the best thing that have happened recently as they have given Back Benchers back some rights.

Mr. Tom Clarke: The House is listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. So that we can put the matter into historical perspective, he owes it to the House to explain why, if his party now takes this matter so seriously and gives it the true perspective that we have given it, his former colleagues — Mr. Wilson and Mr. Stewart — steadfastly refused to serve on the Select Committee.

Mr. Welsh: My colleagues are willing to serve on the Committee because we believe it to be important. No more, no less. The Labour party's stance has changed. First, it did not want any English Members, then it would accept some English Members, and now it will accept any English Members.
We are here because Labour has played the Conservatives' game. The Government do not want a Select Committee. They have been quite happy to string the Opposition along. The Government are not a bunch of wilting lillies. This is the Government who have pursued "Spycatcher" anywhere, any time, in any court, in any continent. They sent secret policemen into the BBC's offices in Glasgow in connection with the Zircon affair. This Friday, they will put a three-line Whip on a Conservative Back Bencher's Bill. If they want something, the Government will take it.
The Government do not want the Select Committee because that suits their purpose. They do not like the idea of any Select Committee. What Government would?

Mr. Tim Smith: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Welsh: Not yet.
The Conservatives are electorally embarrassed. They were almost wiped out in Scotland, and rightly so. I do not blame them for not wanting the Select Committee to look at what is going on in the Scottish Office. I am sure that they do not want Malcolm and the Vandelas to be seen much more in public, but I would like them to be scrutinised and criticised by Scottish Back Benchers.

Mr. Tim Smith: rose—

Mr. Welsh: The Scottish Select Committee is the most important, because Scots Back Benchers get a chance only once in five weeks to tackle the Secretary of State with oral


questions, which have been tabled a fortnight before. He holds nine portfolios which in England have separate Ministers and separate days for oral questions. How can Scots Back Benchers scrutinise the Government properly if they do not have the Select Committee?
I ask the Government, as it is they who will eventually decide, to get on with this matter. Scotland needs the Committee. It needs a means of holding the Government accountable to the House. The Government should stop this nonsense and get the Committee going so that we can scrutinise what they are doing in our country.

Mr. Allan Stewart: My right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons has spelt out the position to the House fully and very fairly. It is my view that Select Committees can do an extremely valuable job, but they do it when hon. Members join in independent, non-partisan and reasoned examination of issues and policies pursued by the Executive. My position, as perfectly accurately stated to the House by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace), is that setting up the Scottish Select Committee in this Parliament would, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, be a complete waste of time.
My name is on the Order Paper for a number of reasons, the main one being that, not having the expertise of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), I did not realise that I could be taken off by the simple expedient of writing to my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox). In the absence of assurances to the contrary, I do not believe for a single moment that there would be any real prospect of the Labour Members of such a Committee behaving in a reasoned, constructive manner, in accordance with the traditions of the House.

Mr. Sam Galbraith: rose—

Mr. Stewart: In relation to my own constituency, I can only tell the House that if my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North has received one letter, that is one more than I have received. Everyone in the constituency of Eastwood to whom I have spoken has supported my position that good constituency Members should not waste their time.
The basic reason why the Select Committee has not yet been set up is not the objections of my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North, but the failure, at least until tonight, of the Labour party to accept the unitary principle. We were told by hon. Members again and again that it was unacceptable to have English Members on the Scottish Select Committee.

Mr. William McKelvey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) is saying that he was privy to information to which no other hon. Members were privy. How did he get this information?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Allan Stewart.

Mr. Allan Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to Hansard. It was stated by hon. Members that having English Members on the Committee was unacceptable. To take one example, the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), a luminary of the Scottish Labour party, certainly said that in answer to a question
That principle of the unitary Parliament has not been accepted by Scottish Labour Members on a number of other occasions. Only this week the hon. Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) said that it would be intolerable if English Members were placed on a Committee to consider the Housing (Scotland) Bill. Yet at the same time a Scottish Labour Member had been placed on a Committee to consider a Bill affecting purely English and Welsh matters, the Licensing Bill, and I believe that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) has made a valuable contribution to the debates on that measure. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, Labour Members divided the House after the first Scottish Question Time of this Parliament because they believed that it was wrong for my hon. Friends from English seats to seek to catch your eye during Scottish questions.
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) does not accept the unitary principle in relation to the official business of the House, because at the start of this Session he announced the Scottish Labour party view—doubtless to ringing cries about the "mandate of the Scottish people, comrades" — that the Labour Whips would not discuss business matters with my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Maclean) solely because his constituency happened to be on the wrong side of Gretna Green.
I believe that the attitude that has consistently been taken on the unitary principle by the Labour party in this Parliament is reprehensible and wrong. If it is changed as a result of the focusing of minds by this issue before the House tonight, it will be a positive gain. I hope that the House will support the motion moved by my right hon. Friend. If there is to be any progress, I hope that it will he on a reasoned basis. Certainly no assurances have been received as yet on that from the Labour party.

Mr. Harry Ewing: I listened to the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart) when it was put to him on television that he should serve on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. That evening he did not put forward any of the reasons that he has just given the House in expressing reservations about a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. His reason that night was rather pompous — that he was now a senior Back Bencher and no Patronage Secretary could tell him what to do. The purpose of my raising that at this stage is to point out the fact that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker)—what a narrow escape the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs had — and the hon. Member for Eastwood shifted their position from saying that they would want a Scottish Affairs Select Committee provided there were English Tory Back Benchers on it to saying that they do not want a Scottish Affairs Select Committee in any circumstances. If the debate has done nothing else, it has brought out the true reason behind the hon. Member for Eastwood's obstruction to the Select Committee and the hon. Member for Tayside, North's not wanting to serve at all.
The Leader of the House was less than fair. He said that there had been no Select Committee on Scottish Affairs between 1974 and 1979. That is true, but to my certain knowledge when the Conservatives were in opposition between 1974 and 1979 there was no request from the Opposition for a Select Committee to be established on any subject.
The Leader of the House should know that in those days the nature and purpose of Select Committees were totally different from the nature and purpose of the Select Committee we are discussing tonight. The last Select Committee under the old arrangement was chaired by John Brewis, the predecessor but one of the Minister of State, Scottish Office. That Select Committee was set up to consider land use in Scotland. The Tory Opposition in Scotland between 1974 and 1979 did not raise one subject that they thought was worthy of examination by such a Select Committee.
The position now is different. As the whole House knows, we are talking about departmental Select Committees set up to examine Ministers and civil servants and the functions that they carry out. They are totally different. They were established by Norman St. John Stevas. The Leader of the House was less than forthcoming in that part of his speech.
The hon. Member for Eastwood wants an assurance from the Opposition that we accept that this is a unitary Parliament. I give an absolute assurance that I accept that this is a unitary Parliament. I will go further. I predict that if we get much more of the carry-on that we have had from the Tory party tonight, it will not be a unitary Parliament much longer. The one sure way to let the SNP, which is even less of a rump than the Tory party in Scotland, get its way in Scotland is to conduct these debates in the way in which the Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Tayside, North and the hon. Member for Eastwood have conducted the debate tonight.
It ill becomes the hon. Member for Angus, East (Mr. Welsh) to lecture anyone in any part of the House about English Members dictating to people. He is the provost of Angus district council, but not once has he had the courage or the guts to defy the Secretary of State for Scotland on rent increases—

Mr. Andrew Welsh: rose—

Mr. Ewing: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman when I have finished with him. The hon. Gentleman criticises the Labour party and Labour councils. When the Secretary of State told him to put rents up, he asked, "How much do you want us to put them up?" When he was told to spend within spending guidelines, his answer was, "That's all right, Malcolm; I'll do that as well." We do not want any rubbish from the hon. Member for Angus, East lecturing us about being dictated to by English Members.

Mr. Andrew Welsh: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman should listen to the lectures because he has chosen the wrong issue. Under my control Angus district council had the lowest rents increase in a decade and record spending on behalf of its council tenants. We have lower combined rents and rates than any Labour council, except one, and at one time that council was SNP controlled. If the hon. Gentleman gave his tenants the same good deal as Angus district council has given its tenants under SNP control, they would be much better off today.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We should not go too far down that line. Let us get back to the debate.

Mr. Ewing: That is part of the debate. I am not going to allow the Scottish Tories to dictate the position in

Scotland, and I am certainly not going to allow three SNP Members to dictate to the Labour party in Scotland. It is time someone told them that they do not have much of a representation in Scotland. It is time someone told them about the record of their predecessors in the previous Parliament. We will not take lectures from the SNP.

Mr. Alex Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Ewing: I gave way to the deputy leader of the SNP, but I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Presumably the hon. Gentleman comes from part of the same clan as myself in view of our surnames. May I ask him directly whether it is his view that a party that contested the general election as a democratic party should be denied the right to have a seat on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs?

Mr. Ewing: I am not particularly interested as to whether the SNP is represented on the Select Committee. I am saying that I will not be dictated to by three hon. Members who just scraped in here by the skin of their teeth. When the hon. Member for Moray (Mrs. Ewing) was a Member of the House previously, she voted with the Tory party—[Interruption.] The SNP does not have a very good record. The hon. Lady mentioned the similarity in our names. I do not blame her for changing her name since she was here last.
There are far too many important issues that the Scottish Office wants to sweep under the carpet. It is far better to set up a Select Committee in order to consider and investigate those matters than to go down the narrow road advocated by the SNP and the hon. Members for Eastwood and for Tayside, North and not have a Committee at all. The Chairman of the Committee of Selection said that he was here to listen and would accept guidance. The Leader of the House is under an obligation, having heard the guidance, to come forward within the next week or 10 days with a motion on the Order Paper to set up the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs and let it get to work.

Sir Hector Monro: I will not get involved in the inter-party squabbles on the Opposition Benches. If the people of Scotland could see that rabble tonight operating in Edinburgh, they would say, "Heaven help us from ever having devolution."
One interesting point raised tonight was that the Chairman of the Committee of Selection has to ascertain one's wish to attend the Select Committee. I am sure that if some of us had known that years before, the situation might be very different.
The Opposition's amendment is factually incorrect when it asserts that Conservative Members are reluctant to serve on the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. Two or more of us were not reluctant and would have been prepared to serve upon it had it been set up. That is still the position.
The Opposition have tried to present themselves as whiter than white in the handling of this issue through the usual channels since the general election. It should not be forgotten that early in November the Labour Opposition had submitted no names to the Committee of Selection. Perhaps that is a reflection of their internal problems. We were then introduced to an impasse. In these instances we


live by rumour—that is often the way of the House—because no minutes are produced to reflect the discussions of various party committees. At this stage the Labour Opposition were anxious to dictate which Conservative Member should he selected to serve on the Select Committee. That was considered by the House to be intolerable and unacceptable. That was certainly the view of Conservative Members.
This evening the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has become flexible in an effort to retrieve some credibility following the behaviour of the Labour party over the past two months. I heard no mention of flexibility during November or December. During that period the Labour Opposition were determined to have the Members who they chose to serve on the Select Committee and not the Members selected by the Committee of Selection. Now the Opposition are claiming that they wanted from the start to see the setting up of the Select Committee. They claim now always to have been flexible and always prepared to listen to reason, but that was not their position during November and December. It was during that period that they lost the right to see the establishment of the Committee. The requirements that they were dictating to the Committee of Selection were unacceptable to that Committee, and they would have been shown to be unacceptable to the House had a motion reflecting them been put before the House.

Mr. Douglas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir Hector Monro: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman because there is a shortage of time. The hon. Gentleman has intervened once already in another hon. Member's speech.
It is the duty of the House to support the Chairman of the Committee of Selection, my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox), and his motion and to reject the Opposition's bogus amendment, which is factually incorrect and unacceptable.

Mr. William McKelvey: I shall not bore the House by recounting my activities, or lack of them, during the period that I served as a member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. I merely say that if there is a right for any Select Committee to be established in this place, that right must embrace the setting up of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs. We must bear in mind the extensive powers of the Secretary of State for Scotland and the activities of the Scottish Office in acting on his behalf. It would be a scandal if the representatives of the people of Scotland were denied the right to survey the Government's activities in Scotland. That would lead to increased frustration on the Opposition Benches, especially among my right hon. and hon. Friends who represent Scottish constituencies. The people of Scotland see it as their right that there should be established a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs to proceed with any investigations that it sees fit to initiate.
Previous Select Committees on Scottish Affairs, irrespective of whether Members enjoyed serving on them, undertook some valuable work. Many comments to that effect have been made by the spokesmen of both Front Benches.
The frustration of the people of Scotland is growing. Perhaps they are not writing to tell us that they want to

see the establishment of a Select Committee on Scottish Affairs, but it cannot be denied that when the previous Committee went about its business in Scotland there was keen local interest in what was taking place. There was press coverage of the discussions that took place on many of the important issues that involved the lives of the people of Scotland.
I will conclude by quoting two sentences from an editorial in the Glasgow Herald. One refers to
Scotland, a partner of the United Kingdom and not simply a UK region.
Hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber must understand that. They must also appreciate that, at the moment, Scotland is a willing partner, but that may not always be the case. It may not necessarily be the SNP who will convey that message from the Scottish people. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The Scottish people will determine whether they will remain a willing partner. The scandalous and outrageous way in which the people are treated by the Government may determine them to change their minds in the coming years. That will occur unless the Government recognise the needs and the rights of the Scottish people.
A further sentence from the Glasgow Herald editorial gives a marvellous analogy of the situation:
The rocky outcrop of Tantallon Castle, historical centre of English influence in Scotland, dominates the wild east Lothian coast; so too does Thatcherism dominate Scottish politics".
That castle now stands in ruins and Thatcherism, the large rock that juts out in Scottish politics, dominates a people who rejected it. Unless the rights of those people are recognised, frustration will grow into a tide that will overwhelm the desire, shared by all of us, for a united kingdom.

Mr. Donald Dewar: We have listened carefully to some lively debate, but we are discussing a serious issue. I know from contacts on the Government Benches that they also consider this a serious matter, and I give credit for that.
I have not enjoyed all the speeches. I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart). In private he is the most amiable of men, but I must tell him that I find him less and less pleasant as a public figure. I served as Chairman of the Scottish Affairs Select Committee when it was reconstituted in 1979 and I find it curious—I use a neutral word—that the hon. Gentleman should object to partisan conduct in Select Committees. I remember his role and that of other Conservative Members during the Committee's investigation into the the SDA's attempts to attract industry to Scotland. That is just one example. I am sorry—I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts that my sorrow is genuine — that he has joined the refuseniks on this issue. He does not do himself justice.
I accept the important point that the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) did not enjoy his days on the Committee. He was an embattled minority of one, cut off from his own side. I accept that that must have been an unpleasant experience, although one with which perhaps, on occasions, he has had to live. However, there is no case for saying that we should not have a Select Committee because in the past one or two hon. Members—rightly or wrongly — have not enjoyed their service on a Committee. If we proceeded on that basis, we would


abolish a Select Committee on any subject if it had a bad run. The Select Committees would represent a diminishing part of the parliamentary scene.
The hon. Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro) has had long experience of the ways of the House. I do not believe that it was fair to say that we tried to dictate, at any point, who should be on the Committee. I am not aware of any such effort. I do not believe that the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) gave the impression that he felt that Labour Members had dictated to him. Indeed, he fairly said that the matter had not been discussed by the Committee of Selection because it felt that it was a matter for the business managers on both sides as to who should serve on the Scottish Affairs Select Committee. The claims by the hon. Member for Dumfries are the stuff of myths and represent specious special pleading that does not give credit to the debate.
The Select Committee on Scottish Affairs is important because it is part of the parliamentary process. It would be a better irony if the Scottish Office were the one major Department of State that was not subject to the scrutiny of a Select Committee. We and the majority of the Scottish people believe that the Government's policies for Scotland are insensitive and inappropriate. It is essential that the Ministers responsible should be called to account by a Select Committee.
Once more I must make it clear that our overriding concern is that the Select Committee should be established. I have explained that our preference would be for a Committee made up of Members representing Scottish seats. That could be achieved if Scottish Tory Members were prepared to serve or by increasing the number of Scottish Members from other parties. There will be no shortage of volunteers from the Scottish Labour group if that route is to be followed. Sadly—and I must accept this as a practical politician—it appears that the Government are insisting on a Conservative majority, but they cannot deliver the numbers required to achieve that from the Scottish Conservative ranks.
We could allow ourselves the luxury, which the SNP is taking, of saying that it must be a Select Committee and it must comprise only Scottish Members. But in the real world of the present that is impossible. In effect, it is to say that there will not be a Select Committee and we have rejected that.

Mr. Salmond: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Dewar: No. I am anxious that the Leader of the House should have a chance to respond, so I have only a couple of minutes at most.
If the Scottish Conservative ranks will not deliver sufficient hon. Members, the future of the Select Committee is at risk as a direct result. Given the difficulties in the Conservative camp, Labour has taken a constructive approach. We argue that the Government have a duty to set up the Committee. If, in addition to the Scottish Tory Members who are prepared to serve, that involves nominating Members from other parts of the United Kingdom, the House should be given the opportunity to take that decision. We would consider any such solution an eloquent condemnation and comment on the Government's weakness in Scotland. But our preference is and must be for a Select Committee in being and working rather than for no Select Committee.
If the only way to set up the Select Committee is to include a minimum of hon. Members representing English constituencies, Labour will accept reluctantly that that price must be paid. We hope that the reluctant Scottish Tory Members will reconsider their position as, indeed, I remind the hon. Member for Tayside, North, the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Association has urged him. If, however, there is no movement, the Government have a duty to respond to the clear wish of Scottish public and political opinion that a way forward be found.
The hon. Member for Shipley made it clear that he was seeking the advice of the House and the views of the parties within it. I hope that I have made the position of my right hon. and hon. Friends clear. Who should be nominated is a matter for the business managers. In view of what I have said, I do not believe that there is any virtue in semantics about our constitutional structure, behind which the Leader of the House appeared, at least momentarily, to shelter. He knows our view. I hope that he will now be prepared to act on it and find enough Tory Members who believe in the Select Committee system and in the need to have comprehensive coverage and scrutiny of Scottish affairs to ensure that we make progress shortly.

Mr. Wakeham: It has been a noisy and good-humoured debate. I have listened carefully to the Opposition and important issues underlie these matters. Some of the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) were more encouraging and flexible than earlier comments, but they were certainly inconsistent with what my hon. Friend the Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) said and what was said by Opposition Members in the Committee of Selection. They were even more inconsistent with the Opposition amendment on the Order Paper. Each position is different, none is consistent one with the other. Therefore, I believe that we are right to take note of the special report and to reject the amendment in the names of Opposition Members.

Mr. Brian Wilson: The speech from the Leader of the House is regrettable. He does nothing to enhance his reputation by his economy with the truth, which might earn him a peerage but certainly will not earn him the respect of Labour Members.
When my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) said specifically that there was no conflict between what he was saying and what the hon. Member for Shipley (Sir M. Fox) said, as far as I could see, the hon. Gentleman agreed with those sentiments. Yet the Leader of the House has contradicted the hon. Gentleman. There is a need for clarification. There can be no doubt on this issue. There is only one black and white issue: of 370 Members who sit on the other side, the Government cannot find five to serve on this Committee—

Mr. Don Dixon: rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.

Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.

Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 160, Noes 198.

Division No. 137]
[12.30 am


AYES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Leadbitter, Ted


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Lewis, Terry


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Litherland, Robert


Barron, Kevin
Livingstone, Ken


Battle, John
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Beckett, Margaret
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Beggs, Roy
McAllion, John


Beith, A. J.
McAvoy, Tom


Bermingham, Gerald
McCartney, Ian


Blair, Tony
Macdonald, Calum


Boyes, Roland
McFall, John


Bradley, Keith
McGrady, E. K.


Bray, Dr Jeremy
McKay, Allen (Penistone)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
McKelvey, William


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
McLeish, Henry


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
McNamara, Kevin


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
McTaggart, Bob


Buchan, Norman
McWilliam, John


Buckley, George
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Caborn, Richard
Mallon, Seamus


Callaghan, Jim
Marek, Dr John


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Martin, Michael (Springburn)


Canavan, Dennis
Martlew, Eric


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Maxton, John


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Meale, Alan


Clay, Bob
Michael, Alun


Clelland, David
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Cousins, Jim
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Crowther, Stan
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Cryer, Bob
Morgan, Rhodri


Cummings, J.
Morley, Elliott


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Mowlam, Marjorie


Dalyell, Tam
Mullin, Chris


Darling, Alastair
Murphy, Paul


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Nellist, Dave


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
O'Brien, William


Dewar, Donald
O'Neill, Martin


Dixon, Don
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Dobson, Frank
Patchett, Terry


Doran, Frank
Pendry, Tom


Douglas, Dick
Pike, Peter


Dunnachie, James
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Eastham, Ken
Prescott, John


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Reid, John


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Robertson, George


Foster, Derek
Rogers, Allan


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Galbraith, Samuel
Ross, William (Londonderry E)


Galloway, George
Rowlands, Ted


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Salmond, Alex


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Short, Clare


Gordon, Ms Mildred
Skinner, Dennis


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Grocott, Bruce
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Haynes, Frank
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Hinchliffe, David
Snape, Peter


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Spearing, Nigel


Home Robertson, John
Steinberg, Gerald


Hood, James
Stott, Roger


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Strang, Gavin


Hoyle, Doug
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Illsley, Eric
Turner, Dennis


Ingram, Adam
Wall, Pat


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Wallace, James


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Wareing, Robert N.


Kirkwood, Archy
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Lambie, David
Wilson, Brian


Lamond, James
Winnick, David





Wise, Mrs Audrey



Worthington, Anthony
Tellers for the Ayes


Wray, James
Mr. Allen Adams and


Young, David (Bolton SE)
Mr. Nigel Griffiths.


NOES


Allason, Rupert
Jackson, Robert


Amess, David
Janman, Timothy


Amos, Alan
Jessel, Toby


Arbuthnot, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Atkins, Robert
Kirkhope, Timothy


Atkinson, David
Knapman, Roger


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Baldry, Tony
Knowles, Michael


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knox, David


Bevan, David Gilroy
Lang, Ian


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Latham, Michael


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Lawrence, Ivan


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Bottomley, Peter
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Lightbown, David


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Lilley, Peter


Bowis, John
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Lord, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)


Buck, Sir Antony
Malins, Humfrey


Burns, Simon
Marland, Paul


Burt, Alistair
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Butler, Chris
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Butterfill, John
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Mates, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Maude, Hon Francis


Carrington, Matthew
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Carttiss, Michael
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Cash, William
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Cran, James
Miller, Hal


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Mills, Iain


Curry, David
Miscampbell, Norman


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Day, Stephen
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Dorrell, Stephen
Moate, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Monro, Sir Hector


Durant, Tony
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Dykes, Hugh
Morrison, Sir Charles (Devizes)


Fallon, Michael
Morrison, Hon P (Chester)


Forman, Nigel
Moss, Malcolm


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Moynihan, Hon C.


Fox, Sir Marcus
Neale, Gerrard


Gale, Roger
Nelson, Anthony


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Neubert, Michael


Gow, Ian
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Greenway, John (Rydale)
Nicholls, Patrick


Gregory, Conal
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)


Grist, Ian
Oppenheim, Phillip


Ground, Patrick
Page, Richard


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Paice, James


Hannam, John
Patnick, Irvine


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Pawsey, James


Harris, David
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv'NE)
Portillo, Michael


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Powell, William (Corby)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Raffan, Keith


Holt, Richard
Redwood, John


Hordern, Sir Peter
Renton, Tim


Howard, Michael
Rhodes James, Robert


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Riddick, Graham


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Irvine, Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Jack, Michael
Rowe, Andrew






Ryder, Richard
Tredmnick, David


Sackville, Hon Tom
Trippier, David


Sayeed, Jonathan
Trotter, Neville


Shaw, David (Dover)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarf)
Viggers, Peter


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Sims, Roger
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Speed, Keith
Waller, Gary


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Ward, John


Squire, Robin
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Stanbrook, Ivor
Warren, Kenneth


Stern, Michael
Watts, John


Stevens, Lewis
Wells, Bowen


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wheeler, John


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Whitney, Ray


Stradling Thomas, Sir John
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Sumberg, David
Wilkinson, John


Summerson, Hugo
Wilshire, David


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Wood, Timothy


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)



Thornton, Malcolm
Tellers for the Noes:


Thurnham, Peter
Mr. Mark Lennox-Boyd and


Tracey, Richard
Mr. David Maclean.

Question accordingly negatived.

Main Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 197, Noes 159.

Division No. 138]
[12.41 am


AYES


Allason, Rupert
Fallon, Michael


Amess, David
Forman, Nigel


Amos, Alan
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Arbuthnot, James
Fox, Sir Marcus


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gale, Roger


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Atkins, Robert
Gow, Ian


Atkinson, David
Greenway, John (Rydale)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Gregory, Conal


Baldry, Tony
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Grist, Ian


Bevan, David Gilroy
Ground, Patrick


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hannam, John


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bottomley, Peter
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Harris, David


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Bowis, John
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Brazier, Julian
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Holt, Richard


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Howard, Michael


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hunt, David (Wirral W)


Burns, Simon
Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)


Burt, Alistair
Irvine, Michael


Butler, Chris
Jack, Michael


Butterfill, John
Jackson, Robert


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Janman, Timothy


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Jessel, Toby


Carrington, Matthew
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Carttiss, Michael
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Cash, William
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Kirkhope, Timothy


Cran, James
Knapman, Roger


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Curry, David
Knowles, Michael


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knox, David


Day, Stephen
Lang, Ian


Dorrell, Stephen
Latham, Michael


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lawrence, Ivan


Durant, Tony
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Dykes, Hugh
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark





Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Rowe, Andrew


Lilley, Peter
Ryder, Richard


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Lord, Michael
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Shaw, David (Dover)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarf)


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Sims, Roger


McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Malins, Humfrey
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Marland, Paul
Speed, Keith


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Squire, Robin


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mates, Michael
Stern, Michael


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stevens, Lewis


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Miller, Hal
Sumberg, David


Mills, Iain
Summerson, Hugo


Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mitchell, David (Hants NW)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Moate, Roger
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thornton, Malcolm


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thurnham, Peter


Morrison, Sir Charles (Devizes)
Tracey, Richard


Morrison, Hon P (Chester)
Tredinnick, David


Moss, Malcolm
Trippier, David


Moynihan, Hon C.
Trotter, Neville


Neale, Gerrard
Twinn, Dr Ian


Nelson, Anthony
Viggers, Peter


Neubert, Michael
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Nicholls, Patrick
Waldegrave, Hon William


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Nicholson, Miss E. (Devon W)
Waller, Gary


Oppenheim, Phillip
Ward, John


Page, Richard
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Paice, James
Warren, Kenneth


Patnick, Irvine
Watts, John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Wells, Bowen


Pawsey, James
Wheeler, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Whitney, Ray


Porter, David (Waveney)
Widdecombe, Miss Ann


Portillo, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Powell, William (Corby)
Wilshire, David


Raffan, Keith
Wolfson, Mark


Redwood, John
Wood, Timothy


Renton, Tim
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Rhodes James, Robert



Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Tellers for the Ayes:


Riddick, Graham
Mr. David Lightbown and


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Mr. David Maclean.


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm



NOES


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Armstrong, Ms Hilary
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Canavan, Dennis


Barron, Kevin
Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)


Battle, John
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Beckett, Margaret
Clay, Bob


Beggs, Roy
Clelland, David


Beith, A. J.
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Bermingham, Gerald
Cook, Frank (Stockton N)


Blair, Tony
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Boyes, Roland
Cousins, Jim


Bradley, Keith
Crowther, Stan


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Cryer, Bob


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Cummings, J.


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Dalyell, Tarn


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Darling, Alastair


Buchan, Norman
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Buckley, George
Dewar, Donald


Caborn, Richard
Dixon, Don


Callaghan, Jim
Dobson, Frank


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Doran, Frank






Douglas, Dick
Michael, Alun


Dunnachie, James
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley


Eastham, Ken
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; But


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby,


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Foster, Derek
Morgan, Rhodri


Fyfe, Mrs Maria
Morley, Elliott


Galbraith, Samuel
Mowlam, Marjorie


Galloway, George
Mullin, Chris


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Murphy, Paul


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Nellist, Dave


Godman, Dr Norman A.
O'Brien, William


Gordon, Ms Mildred
O'Neill, Martin


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Grocott, Bruce
Patchett, Terry


Haynes, Frank
Pendry, Tom


Hinchliffe, David
Pike, Peter


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Home Robertson, John
Prescott, John


Hood, James
Primarolo, Ms Dawn


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hoyle, Doug
Reid, John


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Robertson, George


Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)
Rogers, Allan


Illsley, Eric
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Ingram, Adam
Ross, William (Londonderry E


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Rowlands, Ted


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Ruddock, Ms Joan


Kirkwood, Archy
Salmond, Alex


Lambie, David
Short, Clare


Lamond, James
Skinner, Dennis


Leadbitter, Ted
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lewis, Terry
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Litherland, Robert
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Livingstone, Ken
Snape, Peter


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Spearing, Nigel


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Steinberg, Gerald


McAllion, John
Stott, Roger


McAvoy, Tom
Strang, Gavin


McCartney, Ian
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Macdonald, Calum
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


McFall, John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


McGrady, E. K.
Turner, Dennis


McKay, Allen (Penistone)
Wall, Pat


McKelvey, William
Wallace, James


McLeish, Henry
Wareing, Robert N.


McNamara, Kevin
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


McTaggart, Bob
Wilson, Brian


McWilliam, John
Winnick, David


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Mallon, Seamus
Worthington, Anthony


Marek, Dr John
Wray, James


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)



Martin, Michael (Springburn)
Tellers for the Noes:


Martlew, Eric
Mr. Allen Adams and


Maxton, John
Mr. Nigel Griffiths.


Meale, Alan

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Special Report from the Committee of Selection of 9th December, relating to the Scottish Affairs Committee.

Firbeck Hospital

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]

Mr. Kevin Barron: I am pleased that I have been granted this Adjournment debate tonight to bring to the attention of the House the closure of Firbeck hospital in my constituency. Firbeck hall was bought by the Miners Welfare Commission in December 1945 after being used during the second world war by the Sheffield hospitals board. It was converted into a rehabilitation centre with accommodation for 50 patients, and the first cases were received in April 1947. By 1950 the capacity had been increased to 95 beds through the building of a new wing comprising a gymnasium, hydrotherapy pool, treatment rooms and workshops.
The centre was transferred to the Ministry of Health in 1952 and it was agreed that it would have its own management committee within the NHS, but by virtue of the National Health Service Reorganisation Act 1973 the committee was abolished and the centre came under the control of the Rotherham area health authority in 1974. It has kept a Firbeck hospital committee, with members from neighbouring health authorities, British Coal, Rotherham community health council and coal mining trade unions. It has changed its views to treat many patients from all walks of life, including amputees, who are referred to it from the artificial limb and appliance centre at Sheffield. Those patients have been allocated beds where concentrated courses of treatment and care take place.
On 12 November 1987 the Rotherham health authority agreed to circulate a formal consultation document and an option appraisal on the rehabilitation services in Rotherham. According to that document, the authority believes that the closure of Firbeck hospital is justified. I disagree with that decision. The option appraisal identified three possible choices: to upgrade Firbeck hospital; to provide rehabilitation services at Badsley Moor lane hospital; and to provide such services at the district general hospital at Rotherham. The authority decided to favour the second option, and then sent the matter out for consultation. The consultation document mentions the number of miners who have been treated during the past decade and the changes in attendance, which have meant that
the number of patients treated has increased over recent years, particularly in the day and sessional out-patients categories.
The document says that more patients could use the hospital, including those who are not receiving treatment because of their inability or unwillingness to make the long journey to Firbeck. That caused me to smile, because I have with me the minutes of a meeting held in August 1945 of the local trade union associations and the Miners Welfare Commission, when it was decided to purchase Firbeck. Mr. A. Nicholl, the community surgeon to the commission, stated that a centre should not be more than 25 or 30 miles from patients' homes. I assure the House that private and public travel facilities have improved a great deal since 1945, when the historic decision to buy the hospital was made.
The penultimate paragraph of the consultation document states:


Having considered the option appraisal, and recognising the need to provide services effectively and in the most efficient manner, the Authority believes closure of Firbeck Hospital is justified because the service can be provided more effectively elsewhere to a wider range of patients. Significant revenue savings can be achieved which will be available for other service developments.
Let me deal with those two assertions: first, that money will be saved. That is the case on revenue costs, but not on capital costs. Indeed, the other two options would have a much higher capital cost. The actual difference when capital costs are taken into account is small when compared with the area health authority budget. We must offset that small cost against the treatment and care the hospital can provide now and in the future.
The hospital has helped many thousands of miners to get back 	into work after serious injury. My father and brother have had in-patient treatment at the hospital following industrial accidents. The health problems of mineworkers are different from those of the general population, and the requirement for orthopaedic-related services is much greater. About 45 per cent. of disabilities in the mining industry are in the trauma of musculoskeletal categories.
In a report written in 1983, Mr. E. B. Macdonald, then the National Coal Board's principal medical officer for Yorkshire, who is an honorary consultant in rehabilitation and rheumatology, said:
Medicine in the United Kingdom is primarily orientated towards acute treatment rather than prevention and rehabilitation. Rehabilitation has always been recognised as the 'Cinderella' among the medical specialties. Furthermore, treatment services have evolved such that they tend to be centralised around large district general hospitals which are designed to provide most facilities necessary for the majority in the community … Prolonged unnecessary absence from work takes its toll psychologically. It is well recognised in sociological studies that after as little as three months off work a man or woman can lose their drive and volition to work. This in itself makes the rehabilitation process more difficult because of these and other psychological effects. These patients do not respond well to short sessions of treatment in hospital outpatient departments in between which they lapse back into the apathy of the sit-at-home, visit the-club routine. These patients tend to make very good progress at Firbeck … I believe that it is important for men and women working in heavy industry to get prompt and effective treatment for their disability, not only for their own benefit but for the good of the community as their unnecessary absence from work has enormous economic effects.
Mr. Macdonald believed that Firbeck should be fully integrated into the National Health Service as part of the continuing rehabilitation process. That is evidence from a leading expert who is recognised in south Yorkshire and in most other areas.
The hospital was previously under scrutiny in 1983–84, in the Trent regional review. Rotherham community health council visited the hospital in August 1984, and I can summarise its report as follows:
'Small is beautiful' and small organisations can cater more for a specific person. Firbeck develops competition between patients. Patients may lose their identity and become `lost' in a large unit … The setting at Firbeck is ideal and inspires patients to communicate with nature. Firbeck should be developed to a greater extent … Firbeck provides a very valuable service to the local heavy industries and encourages patients to get themselves fit for work … As opposed to a District General Hospital environment Firbeck has the time and facilities to concentrate on cybernetics and the human involvement.

The neighbouring Bassetlaw community health council also visited the hospital in October 1984, and concluded in its report:
There is no hesitation whatsoever in recommending that Firbeck Rehabilitation Centre be continued and indeed expanded as members are convinced, after having the opportunity of talking to both patients and staff, that the care and facilities provided at Firbeck could not be equalled on a DGS site.
When visiting Firbeck, I spoke to a person who had lost both his lower limbs in an industrial accident. There was certainly no doubt in my mind that the treatment and care that he was receiving was going a long way towards rehabilitating him to the realities that a young man with such traumatic injuries must face. I recall that he was the same age as me, and he also had a young family. The extended course that he was undergoing as an amputee was doing much to adjust him to the psychological state induced by what had happened to him. The appraisal points out that some patients are removed from stressful home environments after difficult times following injury and benefit from the excellent environment at Firbeck.
Even Rotherham health authority has in the past recognised the unique facilities at Firbeck for both treatment and care. The environment of the hospital is aptly described in its own words in a leaflet that it issued a few years ago. It said:
the grounds lend themselves to a variety of therapeutic and pleasure uses. There are footpaths laid out through the woodlands to demand varying degrees of effort from the patients, a bowling green, putting green and cricket/sports field, and numerous areas suitable for ad hoc recreational activities such as volley ball, netball etc. While maintaining the emphasis on recovery by means of purposeful exercise and activity, relaxation and social affairs are also there to be enjoyed. A games room is provided for both therapeutic and leisure activities. Snooker tables are available and there is also a covered skittle alley.
In 1952 the conveyance from the Miners Welfare Commission to the Ministry of Health contained the following clause:
The Minister hereby undertakes with the Commission to use and maintain the property hereby conveyed as a Rehabilitation Centre primarily for the use of injured workers in or about coal mines and to use the same for no other purpose until such time as after consultation with the Commission he is satisfied that not less adequate alternative facilities are available to such workers".
Rotherham health authority has failed to maintain the hospital. In its own appraisal, it admits to receiving a report in May 1983 suggesting that building fabric and engineering services were in need of refurbishing and replacement. We can only assume that it has done nothing since then. The appraisal also states, in paragraph 7.1.3 on page 22, in relation to the authority's preferred option:
this provision would meet the clause in the deeds regarding adequacy of alternative provision.
I strongly dispute that. The care given at Firbeck, especially to amputees, and its beautiful environment, can never be matched in either of the two alternative options.
I travel on the motorway regularly when going between the House and my Yorkshire constituency. I happened to listen to a phone-in programme presented by Nick Ross in December last year, in which the Minister took part. I wonder whether the hon. Lady remembers a call that she received from a Mr. Paramoor from Exeter, who spoke of the hospital and ward closures that were then taking place. In answer to his question the hon. Lady spoke of a small


cottage hospital in South Molton, north Devon, where I understand her relatives came from. She said that closure had been talked of, and:
then they realised it's nice for people to have not treatment hut care.
She went on to describe that care as very valuable and very nice.
The very same phrases could be applied to the many thousands of people who have been in Firbeck hospital over the years; and, indeed, to the patients who are there now, receiving the same treatment and care, rather than simply being brought into a major hospital—perhaps a district general — and being given one or two days a week of out-patient physiotherapy. Firbeck can provide services which can be found nowhere else in the health authority area. They certainly cannot be provided under the options drawn up by the area health authority. I urge the Minister to support me in asking Rotherham health authority to change its mind and keep open and improve—for the benefit of all in the area—the rehabilitation service and the excellent standard of work in the amputee unit at Firbeck.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mrs. Edwina Currie): I congratulate the hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) on his success in the ballot. It gives me my opportunity to answer my 41st Adjournment debate since coming to this post. I always feel that it is a privilege to have the opportunity to respond to the interests and concerns of hon. Members' constituents in this way, and I shall endeavour to do so again tonight.
The subject that the hon. Gentleman has chosen is of interest to his constituents and the National Union of Mineworkers, which is his sponsor in the House, given Firbeck hospital's origins as a miners' rehabilitation centre. It still provides a service for miners, as do many hospitals in mining areas, including mine. It numbers pit men and ex-pit men among its past and present patients.
It would probably be helpful if I were to explain the procedure concerning variations in services. If there is a substantial variation in health services — it may be something other than closure, such as a change of use—health authorities must consult widely on their plans and consider all the comments. The local community health council must be consulted, and it should submit counter proposals if it disagrees. Any such counter proposals must be carefully considered by the district health authority. The hon. Gentleman will note that I said "must" and not "should".
If the district health authority rejects the counter proposals and reaffirms its original plans, the matter must be referred to the regional health authority. In the case of Firbeck, it would be Trent region. If the regional health authority supports the district's decision and the community health council still objects, the proposal must be referred to Ministers for a final decision. Effectively, therefore, whether a closure comes to Ministers depends on the community health council's view, but we prefer decisions to be taken locally wherever possible.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, before reaching a decision, Ministers are scrupulous to take into account and give weight to all of the comments. It is therefore

important that we do not commit ourselves in advance but hear all the arguments. I am glad to have this opportunity to hear at least some of them.
I can outline the facts as they have been represented to me, especially by the district health authority. I understand that Firbeck hospital is situated some nine miles south of Rotherham near the health authority boundary. It is in a very attractive area and surrounded by pleasant parkland. It was transferred to the NHS nearly 35 years ago. Progressively fewer miners have used the hospital, partly because the number of people employed in mining has reduced substantially during that time, partly because the accident rates in mining are lower—which I am sure everyone here will welcome — and partly because the provision of modern hospitals with improved rehabilitation facilities elsewhere mean; that more miners can be treated as out-patients near their homes. That also must be generally welcome as it is part of an improvement in service.
In 1974, 265 miners received residential treatment. In the first six months of last year, only 58 did. The hospital now also provides residential rehabilitation and outpatient and day services for other groups—mainly men, but also some women. Their numbers have increased steadily and they now heavily outnumber the miners. In 1982, there were 321 residential and 99 day patients. Since then, patterns of treatment have changed again and, by September 1987 there had been 294 resident and 211 day patients. The shift has gone far more towards day patients.
I understand that a number of problems have prompted the Rotherham district health authority to review the rehabilitation services provided in the district, including that provided at Firbeck but not just the Firbeck service. For example, many of those who use Firbeck come, I understand, from the southern and central parts of the district. It is said that many patients do not receive appropriate rehabilitation treatment because of their inability or unwillingness to make the long journey to Firbeck.
While I take on board entirely what the hon Gentleman says about improved transport services since 1945, it is a fact that people's expectations of what constitutes a short or a long journey have also shifted since that time, when perhaps people were more prepared to make longer journeys for scarcer services than they are sometimes now. I am told that this problem particularly affects women because public transport to Firbeck is not easily accessible and, of course, many of the women we are talking about are older ladies who may not have the use of a car. Travel to Firbeck can take a considerable time.
At present only limited provision exists in the district for rehabilitation treatment of people with disabling diseases, such as rheumatic conditions, strokes and back injury. The service appears to have developed substantially in response to accidents, arid that is welcome, but increasingly the people that we need to care for in this kind of service are those of whom age and infirmity have simply taken their toll. It is felt, I understand, that the maximum benefit to these patients can be obtained by beginning intensive treatment as soon as possible after the onset of illness. The need to be resident at Firbeck hospital or to travel considerable distances for out-patient treatment there causes difficulty.
Apart from that, a condition survey has revealed the need for considerable renovation at Firbeck, despite the expenditure of considerable sums, referred to by the hon.


Gentleman, in the recent past. It has been estimated that the cost could be £750,000. On completion, revenue costs would remain at over £400,000 a year, and even then it would not be possible to use the whole of the building.
A district health authority appraisal has been carried out of the best way to provide services in future—and it is a question of ensuring that these services are provided in the future. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not dream of misleading any of his constituents by implying that these services would simply vanish. At a meeting in October 1987 the Rotherham DHA decided against upgrading Firbeck in favour of developing the rehabilitation service at Badsley Moor lane hospital. It was the authority's view that Badsley Moor lane hospital was better situated, since it is in Rotherham itself, and could, with some capital investment, provide a more comprehensive rehabilitation service for the whole of Rotherham—and it would end up costing only £200,000 a year.

Mr. Barron: I am sure that the hon. Lady has no intention of misleading the House on the matter of costs. I said that the actual revenue costs would be higher; but of the three options discussed, the capital costs are certainly higher on the other two than for the refurbishing of Firbeck hospital. What I said was that, if one looked at the revenue costs and the £200,000 a year difference, it is not a lot in terms of the overall budget of the Rotherham area health authority. The real question must be whether £200,000 out of some £30 million is a lot to take into account when one thinks of this long treatment that can be given to amputees. I know that the health authority in any of its appraisals—which, I assure the hon. Lady, I have read in great detail—has not convinced anybody that there is any long-term treatment for amputees. This is not just for the Rotherham area, of course, but for the whole region.

Mrs. Currie: Happily, I reassure the hon. Gentleman and his constituents that nobody is planning to do away with a long-term service to amputees. If they require a medical service, they will get it. The question, as I understand it, is whether they should get it at Firbeck or somewhere else, and whether they can at the same time see some improvement of the service not only to amputees but to people suffering from other forms of disease. I merely offer him the figures that I have been given. I note his view that £200,000 a year difference in running costs is not much—

Mr. Barron: They would be s	aving on capital expenditure.

Mrs. Currie: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would allow me to continue, as I have not quite finished.
I was interested also to hear what the hon. Gentleman said about bowls and skittles and the facilities at Firbeck. That is really quite remarkable. I do not think that many hospitals in this country spend National Health Service money on excellent services like that. In my area they are provided either by the miners' welfare or by other organisations. I merely offer that as a thought to the House. The district health authority is now consulting those concerned locally and has invited comments and, if necessary, counter proposals by 29 February. So it rests with the people concerned locally to contact the health authority with their views.
I should stress that the argument is about how to provide care most efficiently and appropriately and with the least stress and trouble to the people concerned, particularly in travelling. It is not about the standard of care provided. The staff at Firbeck are to be praised for their dedication and their effort towards patients.
Obviously I cannot anticipate what the district health authority will decide, but I understand that the hon. Gentleman has already discussed the issue with the health authority on 8 January. I will ensure that his comments tonight are brought to the authority's attention and that they are borne in mind.
I described the procedure earlier, but there is at least one slight variation in the case of Firbeck. As the hon. Gentleman says, the conveyance under which the property was handed over to the Health Service some 35 years ago states:
The Minister hereby undertakes with the Miners Welfare Commission to use and maintain the property hereby conveyed as a Rehabilitation Centre … and to use the same for no other purpose until such time as after consultations with the commission he is satisfied that not less adequate alternative facilities are available to such workers.
We will obviously look at this point carefully before allowing any change in the service.
I understand also that the National Union of Mineworkers may ask for the building back if a decision is taken to close it. If I have to, I will take legal advice on that. I offer the hon. Gentleman this thought. If the property were to be disposed of through the district health authority, the proceeds would go straight into the National Health Service, not to the Treasury nor anywhere else. We would expect a sum of at least £250,000, which would, I understand, stay in Rotherham health authority. I am sure that most of the hon. Gentleman's constituents would agree that that is a wise procedure and would result in improvements for the public good. I am sure he will agree that the health services in Rotherham could use it. I have no information on what the National Union of Mineworkers might do either with the building or with the money if it was sold by the union.

Mr. Barron: The Minister brings up the question of the National Union of Mineworkers claiming the hospital back. It was the money of coal owners and coal miners that bought the hospital. I have had discussions with the NUM. I have never heard any of the officials say that the union wants it back. We want the facility to carry on being used.

Mrs. Currie: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving us that information. All the money that we can release from the sale of assets that are no longer required we need in the Health Service, particularly in areas like Rotherham. His assurance will be welcome to his constituents. However, we are nowhere near taking legal advice or other decisions on it.
It is important to remember that the Health Service needs to change and to keep up with new demands. We need to develop and improve services within the resources available. We need to realise resources in a way that has been going on to quite an extent in Yorkshire and in Trent regions. We need to meet changing health care needs. Sometimes we need to recognise the different physical distribution of local people from the time when the hospitals were built.
Most changes are agreed locally and most changes result from the improved services which are provided more


appropriately and more economically from a different location. It would not he acceptable to the House, in my judgment, to continue to provide inferior health services from old and outdated buildings when better ones could be provided in better or more modern facilities. That is the basis upon which much of the change has been agreed locally.
The Government attach the highest priority to improving and modernising the estate. Since 1979 at least 176 schemes costing more than £1 million have been completed in the Health Service, providing over 20,000 new beds. There have also been many smaller facilities completed. There have been closures, but the service in

terms of patients treated has increased enormously and Is being provided broadly speaking from more modern and better located hospitals and other facilities.
The process will continue. About £1 billion will be spent this year on capital projects. Throughout England some 470 schemes, each costing over £1 million, with a total value of over £3 billion, are at various stages of planning, design and construction. In Rotherham, as elsewhere, we hope to see the benefits of that massive record building programme. We hope—we are assured—that, whatever decisions are taken about Firbeck, they will be taken entirely in the interests of the patients concerned.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes past One o'clock.